Bad experience with Simon Yeo from Ninjakids Locked

[chorister]

Am I the only one who thinks that a public internet site is completely the wrong forum for airing this sort of thing?  There are plenty of ways of raising formally risks to children which would allow them to be properly investigated.  Here it just results in people with no personal knowledge of the facts piling in.  Haven't we had enough of personal tragedies and business needlessly ruined by this sort of thing?

[BFW]

@chorister I completely agree.

Horrendous to try and destroy a small business and someone’s livelihood like this. And everyone piling in without even knowing what this venue looks like or the exact details.

Social media at its worst. I had a bad experience and I want to air my anger to the world.

[NVHusband]

Totally agree Chorister.

The original posters pure intention was character assassination whilst remaining behind an anonymous account.

If the OP had an issue with Simon, take it up with him. To then come on a public forum and share your views (whilst remaining anonymous) is just vindictive. Your only intention is to put the man out of business.

Some nasty people in our community...

[Bunnypigeon1]

I disagree. The point of this post was to alert other parents to negligent behaviour on behalf of a service provider. In that sense it is no different to other review sites. A key characteristic of social media is that it has enabled consumers to propagate their review of things to a far wider audience than normal- think restaurant reviews, movie reviews, etc. You would never not post a bad review of a restaurant in fear of ruining someone’s livelihood, so why would you abstain from doing so when someone has been negligent towards your children?
I don’t think this is social media at its worst or character assassination (both dramatic claims in my opinion). I completely agree with the poster that this needed to be shared. I do think the teacher should do the right thing and admit he was wrong, and then work to sort this out privately with the affected family. It would have put an end to this thread a while ago!

[chorister]

Bunnypigeon1 - I think you may have missed out a few words - "alleged negligent behaviour" and "allegedly been negligent towards your children".

It is utterly different from restaurant reviews and movie reviews - there are (quite rightly) many, many channels to report alleged risk to or mistreatment of children.  I have no wish to judge this as I just don't know all the facts (which seems to be the case of most of those posting) but there is no indication that the original complainant has used any of those channels.

And remember - there are restaurants too that have been ruined by proven false reviews.  Why do you think there is so much concern over the impact of social media?

[momofthree]

I am disgusted by what happened and even more disgusted by the reply of the instructor. A couple of things strikes me, language firstly. Secondly no pedagogical pr psychological knowledge about children. Although the simplest of people would understand the child is mere 5 years old.
He talked of discipline, yet he has to apply this to his own behaviour.
I honestly would report this to Ofsted and the authority as this needs to be reviewed.
This is psychological abuse to a 5 year old and unsafe. No child should feel left out, this is simply put not the way to exercise discipline. No thanks to Ninjakids take on martial arts.

[Starr]

Sending a 5 year old to do and cope with a martial arts class out of school is a high expectation imho from both parent and instructor.
Perhaps from age 6 is a better idea?

[southoftheriver]

Simon - I dont want to comment on the rights and wrong of the what happened in the class (as others have pointed out only you know the facts about what actually happened)

I did want to say that I think you have handled the situation in this thread in a good way and defended yourself well in a mature way.  I have never used NinjaKids (never even heard of them tbh) but I will now sign my kids up.  In that sense, this post has been good advertising for you.  As you say, im sure your approach isnt for everyone, but posters quickly mentioning the Disability Discrimination Act seem to me to be wide off the mark.  Many comments in this thread seem to be symptomatic of the "cancel culture" that we all seem to be living in right now.  You have clearly built up a good business over the years and have a loyal customer base - keep it up

[Flowermummy]

Why couldn’t Simeon just ask the child to sit it out inside the class??
Honestly, I think that’s an error of judgement and no amount of explanations (asked a parent to keep an eye!??!) can justify this, as Simeon does have a duty of care.
Best course of action would have been for Simeon to apologise, rather than try to argue how this is acceptable.
The child is only 5 for God’s sake!!

[NVHusband]

Let’s also look at the behaviour of the original poster. 

1). Is this the child’s first class? If yes, why did they leave the 5 year old child without ensuring he/ she was settled? Who just drops off their kid and leaves? There were obviously other parents seated and watching, why didn’t the original poster do the same before disappearing?

2). Does the child have behavioural issues or has had behavioural issues? If yes, was this communicated to Simon beforehand? If the child has had or has behavioural issues, then why didn’t they wait until the child was settled before leaving (back to first point above)?

3). Did the original poster complain to instructor after the case? Yes, did the instructor give a refund? Yes. Did the original poster resort to a formal complaints process before trying to posting? Seems like first step was to NappyValley...

4). Is the post on here purely to warn other parents or a vindictive action of a parent who felt aggrieved? You be the judge. I refer to the former...

5). Does the poster remain behind an anonymous account whilst not affording the same transparency? Yes. Original poster please provide us that transparency as I am sure there are some parents who will share their views on you and your children... That will give us a bigger (and fairer) picture on what Simon had to deal with. I am sure you won’t do this as you will then be judged as well!

 

[Scottov]

I think it might be important to consider the facts as it sounds like someone is upset that their child hasnt been allowed to continue to attend my class.

The class started with all the children kneeling down and providing their names. All except for the child mentioned above who flatly refused to provide his name. I spent approximately 10mins of a 45 min class trying to get the child to provide his name, which he flatly refused to do so. I then asked the child to sit out, but clearly visible through a very large glass window. As his behaviour was not conducive to the rest of the class and the time for the other children to practice had been considerably eroded. In addition I also asked another parent who was close to the child to keep an eye on him. I should also add that the whole are is gated and fenced so people cant wander in and out without being noticed. I went to the child another 2 times during the course of the class to ask if he had changed his mind and wanted to give me his name, to which he said he did not. When the father collected the child I informed him of the situation and that within 7 years of teaching many children, I had never had such a situation. The father then returned upset after the second class and I informed him of how I could see the child the whole time through the window as I was addressing the children in that direction and I had also asked another parent also to keep an eye on his child. At the the end I decided that it was best for the child not to attend in future and I gave the father a full refund.

This is a pure statement of fact and people can now draw their own conclusions. Martial arts is a big part discipline, which a lot of parents want. A class cannot run effectively with an uncooperative child. Its unfair to the child and unfair to all the other children that want to learn. I explained all this, but it clearly fell on death ears.

It also subsequently transpires, that the child has speech difficulties and possible behavioural issues, which had I been informed of, I would certainly have made an allowance. This can all be varified by looking at espinozr previous posts regarding his son. I have taught quite a few children with varying issues with great success. I dont claim to be an expert in this field by any means however the parents have always been good enough to alert me of any problems regarding their children. In this case this simply didn't happen prior to class or subsequently.

Yours

Simon
Ninja Kids

I can see your point of view, and why you think the way you do based on the facts as you’ve presented them.

However, you could not see the child at all times, as you were also concentrating on the class. In fact that was by your own admission the purpose of removing the child from the class, to focus your attention elsewhere

This IS a safeguarding issue, even if you didn’t mean any harm. You were frustrated, and under what you felt to be unfair duress made a regrettable decision

That decision had potential child endangerment consequences and raises questions about supervision ratios and training when dealing with children within that age range

I have personal sympathy for your position but I would not be surprised to see this catch the attention of local authorities

[Mayamoo]

Agree with southoftheriver - Simon I don’t know you either but think your response was fair and balanced and I wouldn’t hesitate sending my children to your classes in the future.

[parentofteens]

So, you are compaining about the original poster being responsible for "character assassination" but your suggestion is that a child's name should be made public so others can weigh in with what you hope to be character assassination of a 5 year old?
If there ever was a reason why forums need moderators, this is it. What you have written is unnaceptable. Beyond unnaceptable even, it is sick.

And people are not only judging what the OP wrote - the instruction has replied at length himself. What he has written demonstrates a lack of understanding of the laws one has to abide with when working with children, regardless of all other considerations.

NVHusband wrote:
>
> 5). Does the poster remain behind an anonymous account whilst not affording
> the same transparency? Yes. Original poster please provide us that
> transparency as I am sure there are some parents who will share their views
> on you and your children... That will give us a bigger (and fairer) picture
> on what Simon had to deal with. I am sure you won’t do this as you will
> then be judged as well!
>
>  

[Sw17mun]

I am not sure this is about cancel culture. Or about destroying a businesses. It is clear we all have very different views about the issue but after having read all the messages the core for me is about child safety. A child was placed outside of the room where they were supposed to be safeguarded. And from reading the threads I understand this area was fenced but with access to the outside. Suppose this child decided to run? I assume that would have been possible.
I also do not think it is possible to concentrate 100% of the time on a child that is outside of the room you are in. Otherwise how do you teach the class?
In the same way some do not think it is right for Simon and his business to be bashed online I also don't think it is right for the original poster to be so heavily criticised. This is not about a mere squabble. This is about something that could have severe consequences to any child of this age put in the same position.

[Neptune214]

I can see your point about possibly being vindictive and we all need to be careful about what we post on social media as it can take on a life of it’s own.

BUT : anyone who treats a five year old like that - especially at their first class - and endangers their safety by not exercising their duty of care should not be teaching children’s activities. It doesn’t matter how many 100s of kids may have had good experiences. This is completely unacceptable.