Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine arrested - The vindictiveness of the school and police overreach

Looks like Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine weren't the only people targeted by the school.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2025/nov/22/whos-screenshotting-our-messages-how-a-whatsapp-saga-spiralled-into-two-parents-wrongful-arrest

Yes.

You tell the police what you think someone has done and if they think it sounds legit and like the person’s behaviour warrants police intervention they may go and arrest them.

If you tell the police someone has been incredible abusive on repeated occasions and they have put you in fear and alarm of your safety they will (should) investigate the validity of your accusations. They may interview witnesses who may or may not support your claims.

If they proceed to arrest the accused on the basis of what you have claimed and it turns out you embellished the facts or your interpretation of events was unreasonable then the police may find themselves having to compensate the accused for wrongful arrest if they haven’t carried out a thorough and fair investigation.

Oh, so if I want someone arrested all I have to do is phone the police and complain about them? Is that how it works?

The problem is schools can lie and noone holds them accountable. They can make safeguarding referrals with no proof of Safeguarding concerns. This then is up to the parents to prove otherwise. Even when the parents have proved the school has lied, no action is taken. This is a power imbalance, which some schools seem to get a kick out of

noblegiraffe · Today 11:57

+++Someone at school took against the couple and that’s why they were wrongfully arrested.+++

But schools can't get anyone arrested. The police arrest people, not schools. That's why the police had to make the payout, not the school.

Hmm. Do you think that there's a possible connection with the school making a complaint to the Police and the parents being arrested? The school doesn't have powers of arrest, of course, but they utilised a body which does have those powers.

They were arrested because the school reported their actions to the police, and rightfully so,

*We contacted the police following a very high volume of direct email correspondence and what we considered upsetting and derogatory social media posts, on Facebook and WhatsApp, from two parents.
"As a school we welcome dialogue with parents however the nature and large volume of the communication and public posts meant that the school were no longer able to manage using normal internal procedures.
"As a result we sought advice from the police.
"Cowley Hill School continues to put its focus on providing an excellent education for its pupils and will not be commenting any further on this matter."

A police officer issued a warning to the family in December, telling them to take their daughter out of school, which they did the next month.
But a week after that, on 29 January, Mr Allen said six police officers turned up at his home.
Mr Allen, who is a Times Radio producer and Liberal Democrat councillor on Hertsmere Borough Council, denied using abusive or threatening language, "even in private".
He said a letter was sent by the chair of governors to all parents "warning them about what he described as inflammatory comments on social media".
Mr Allen said: "When that was used in context with us, they never actually told us what it was we said that was so terrible, because they've never disclosed the WhatsApps that they got hold of.
"But when we look back through, the spiciest thing that we could find was Roslyn calling one senior person at the school a control freak, and that was the strongest remark we could find.*

Someone at school took against the couple and that’s why they were wrongfully arrested

But schools can't get anyone arrested. The police arrest people, not schools. That's why the police had to make the payout, not the school.

it’s not unbelievable to think these parents were wrongfully banned.

They have given plenty of detail about everything that happened since the ban. Not so much about why they were banned apart, really just how inconvenient the ban was.

If you were at the school in question you would absolutely ban those parents for “merely asking about swimming” because as far as you’re concerned they are 100% guilty.

They asked about the swimming via email after the ban.

As I said, details on what they did to get the ban have been very scant apart from 'challenging the appointment process for the new headteacher'.

If you were at the school in question you would absolutely ban those parents for “merely asking about swimming” because as far as you’re concerned they are 100% guilty.

You have consistently shown you take the schools side and see everything the parents have done as evidence of their unreasonable behaviour. You cannot see it as a result of the unreasonable actions of the school.

Parents who take an interest in their child’s school irritate the wrong person at school. Their child requires greater communication with school due to additional needs. The school (ie probably one or two already biased individuals) allows their feelings of the parents to cloud all future interactions with the parents who they’ve branded as trouble-makers. Everything they say or do is going to back up their version of events as to why these parents are so awful. They sent so many emails because school banned them from the premises then didn’t reply to those emails, even though they needed to in order to provide adequate care for the child. That’s appalling. The story the school then told the police was their biased version of events which the police didn’t bother to investigate properly.

Someone at school took against the couple and that’s why they were wrongfully arrested. Someone at school allowed their personal view to cloud their judgement which is exactly what you’re doing so no, it’s not unbelievable to think these parents were wrongfully banned.

I'm sorry about your experience and children with SEN are being let down by the education system across the country. It really isn't fit for purpose.

However, in this case, the couple were not banned from the school site for challenging provision for their child with SEN, but for their complaints about the recruitment process for a new headteacher.

The details about what exactly they did there seem to be lacking. The emails about the care for the SEN child (and I think the rude social media messages) came after the ban, and that's what the news seems to be focusing on, as that's what led to the (unwarranted) arrest.

oh i was absolutely one of 'those' parents. I wear that badge with pride.. i am still wearing it now they're in college.

I have always said that i am my kids one and only advocate, and if i don't stand up for them, no-one else will.. so you bet i'm THAT parent.

Being that parent has got my kids what they need, when they need it.

The learning curve was how to get there firmly and politely.. and i learned it after that incident. I just make it very clear these days that i know the law, and i know what their obligations within it are, and i expect it to be met.

You were probably labelled as "one of those parents"
I was too. Pretty frustrating when all you want is what's best for your SEN child...

Yes, I think it’s unreasonable to condemn the parents based on the schools actions as the school is obviously getting it wrong and we know that many schools behave in a combative or inappropriate way.

The school mentioned upthread where a male teacher is allowed to impose his ‘identity’ issues on his young students in a highly contentious and questionable way for example.

you would be surprised how easy it is to get yourself banned from the school premises as the parent of a disabled or SEN child. It's well known that it happens.

My kids primary school threatened quite a few parents with it when they became upset/irate with staff for failures in care/not following the EHCP.

I was issued a stern final warning after giving one of the teachers quite a firm dressing down after she kept my son in the classroom all day because he wouldn't do a piece of work, in full breach of his EHCP. It was only rescinded after i escalated a complaint of blatant disability discrimination to the Governors.

If you read the articles, it says the parents had written to the school previously over ‘various concerns’. There were procedural and governance issues and the parents took an interest in their child’s school.

You seem determined to infer that it was the parents that were entirely in the wrong here but you have no evidence that it wasn’t the school that was entirely in the wrong. In fact I’d say that from what we know, it is the school has behaved very badly on a number of counts. One of the most serious being the safeguarding issues around their epileptic daughter.

We have some idea what happened because both the school statement and what the couple say fundamentally agree with each other.

@noblegiraffe is it though? Schools do make mistakes and break the law themselves and are run by humans who can be fallible. I have no idea what happened here and neither do you. Why would it have to be the case that the school’s stance was legitimate? That is your assumption and you have no evidence.

“but we sent no more emails than any other parent in our position. Because we were banned and put on limited communication, I couldn’t just nip into the office”

That is rather revealing though. Schools don’t ban or limit communication for a parent who merely asks about swimming precautions. The vast majority of parents wouldn’t be in that position in the first place.

As a family member of someone with epilepsy I can completely see why the family were concerned about supervision while swimming.

The Jewish Chronicle has reported on this story as they are Jewish parents JC article

“Allen remarked that the school had no authority beyond its gates.

“No public body has the power to control what people say about it,” he wrote.

They then started writing to the school and, in one email, Levine asked: “What precautions had been put in place to keep Sascha [who is epileptic] safe in the swimming pool?”
“Swimming with epilepsy could be fatal without proper supervision, so I would like to see the risk assessment for this please.”

Levine told the JC in April: “Some people have the impression that we were bombarding the school, but we sent no more emails than any other parent in our position. Because we were banned and put on limited communication, I couldn’t just nip into the office like I might have done before. Everything about Sascha had to go through email.”

im not sure why this is even still a conversation?

What they did/didn't do is irrelevant, the fact is, it didn't meet the threshold for arrest and as such they've been compensate £20k for the illegal arrest.

“Vaguely spicy” is what he actually said.

Which is rather different to plain “spicy”.

More misrepresentation. Why do you seem to have a problem with this couple?

Yes, it’s interesting. There was a degree of exaggeration and misrepresentation there too.

I said that they bombarded the school with emails. The amount of emails that they detailed as having sent was a lot. Perhaps you don't think they were a lot, but the school said that the volume was unmanageable.

Here's a screenshot of Maxie Allen admitting that his wife made spicy (his word not mine) comments.

Interfere also has an implication that it was inappropriate. I don’t think they have admitted that it was inappropriate for them to question the appointment?