The scenario as outlined illustrates what Blum (2001) has to say about anger; “pupils who become angry are giving an emotional reaction to needs they perceive themselves to have, which are not being met. Anger…can be used to bully and intimidate.” The intervention strategy that was employed allowed ‘A’ to exhaust his verbal anger while preventing him from doing any harm to himself or other people, as “no meaningful dialogue can take place during the crisis” (Blum, 2001). He was then presented with alternatives in a calm way and given the choice of how to proceed while being made aware of the possible consequences of each course of action. Once he had chosen, an interview took place where he was encouraged to see how his actions had affected himself and others in a less than positive way. Having recognised that the way he had behaved had been inappropriate, in consultation with the member of staff, he resolved to do something to make amends for what he had done and made plans to modify his behaviour if he was to feel similarly in the future.The rights that are being infringed by ‘A’s’ actions are that of the moral right of the other boys to be protected from physical and/or mental violence and mistreatment, along with the right that every child has to be treated with respect (Article 19, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). The intervention that was used supports those rights, as well as protecting the boys best interests (Article 3, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989) along with the right of the member of staff to be treated with respect as an individual and in his capacity as someone who is involved in looking after the child (Article 5, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). The action of the member of staff during the intervention also morally upholds the rights of ‘A’, in that he is treated with dignity, given the chance to express his reasons for his actions and he is being led to address the issues promptly without prejudice (Article 40, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). In the scenario, ‘A’ attempts to override acceptable (morally ‘right’) standards of behaviour in order to impose what he wanted upon the other boys; this was driven by his lack of control over his angry emotions due to being late. The member of staff upheld those standards of behaviour, calmly but firmly with the result that ‘A’ was able to recognise that his behaviour was not desirable, understand the reasons for it and to formulate a plan of action to modify his actions if similar feelings surfaced again. The intervention and subsequent plan of action for ‘A’ enabled the unit to continue to be a safe environment for all of the young people in their care.