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

Nope this is what comes before the control freak comment! Given that the control freak comment was made after the complaint from school...and they gloated about things that came before that one would wonder why they only shared the control freak comment - possibly to pretend that is the only one that was said however the timeline doesn't add up!

If it met the legal definition of harassment then they in fact did harass.

Should the school ignore any complains about bullying now and just say it isn't an issue - not going to sort it as communications online can't hurt someone?

The emails were about swimming! Nothing to do with name calling.

No they weren't admitting to harassing the teacher, they were admitting to taking the piss out of a stuffy control freak. If they'd harassed him, they'd have been charged.

Nowhere, never did they say that they were harassing him.

I didn't say that they confessed to charges as no charges were brought. They gloated about what they were doing to the staff member so thus admitting they were harassing them.

@SinnerBoy @TheCastleDoesNotReply I'm just going to stop engaging with Whippy. They're not brining any interesting counter arguments to the table and just writing that we're all "crying" that we can't take their "debate" over and over again.

They also keep saying and /or implying things then saying "where did I say that?" When posters then quote, they evade and say they can believe what they want.

For what it's worth, when the story first broke, my first thought was I bet these parents have done something really awful (we all know this does happen), but as soon as the evidence was released it was abundantly clear they had, in fact done nothing. Like I said upthread I know schools do act like this because one of mine sent out a letter to all parents attempting to ban them from talking to each other. Delusional and dangerous.

I have actually worked in lots and lots of schools and they do not all have 'legal teams' like Whippy emphatically stated more than once. Some schools also behave extremely badly. It has been completely eye opening, the things I have heard and seen I will never forget.

Substantiate what? The parents admitted it.

Sorry, could you please point out in which alternative universe they've confessed to your charges of harassment and defamation, please.

Police didn't say that but hey keep on pretending they did. Police didn't say either way if they had or not. Sadly you do not understand the basics.

Substantiate what? The parents admitted it.

Who is demanding to see medical evidence?

Nope not an angry, ranty biased teacher at all. Nor do I dislike parents. Two false allegations there.

Of course I will call posters liars when they do lie about me. Why would I not? Nope not lived experience at all. Again - more lies.

I do not rub anyone up the wrong way. You again are very much mistaken.
It is alarming that I am not teaching children as nope I am not a teacher. Wrong again!

The CPS make the decision to charge or not. If the evidence meets the legal test then they charge. If not they NFA. The police did not say no evidence of a crime. The police very clearly said insufficient evidence. Sadly if you do not understand the difference then you are falsely accusing many people.

The CPS do prosecute false allegations ask yourself why the family are not reporting it as such. Perpetrators of crimes will always cry false allegation and then do nothing about reporting is at such.

You are accusing the school of a crime without evidence which is quite interesting that you believe they are guilty without evidence as the family have withheld that.

What is disturbing is that you lack basic comprehension skills in understanding insufficient to mean zero. Basic reading skills here.

Also calling someone mental isn't ideal it is what people do when they have no other options.

What is your evidence for your statement that you can “almost categorically say” that the police were wrong (there you go, I’ve included your “almost” before the complete unsubstantiated and unexplained “categorically”) in this case?

You mention cases of parents being unreasonable, which do exist. There are also many, many well-documented cases of schools being unreasonable and breaking the law - I will refer again to the fact that in 98% of disputes between schools and parents about children where the child has a disability (like the little girl in question here, who was treated appallingly and forced to change schools as a result of this school’s behaviour, a fact which bizarrely very few teachers on the thread seem to be remotely concerned about or, indeed, have referred to at all, such is their concern for the children in their care) the judge finds in favour of the parents. And these are the ones that schools don’t settle and think they have a higher chance of winning, yet when an objective judge who understands the law looks at these cases that go all the way to tribunal they find in favour of the parents 98% of the time. That statistic has remained relatively static for several years, so it seems quite clear that in the vast, vast majority of cases it is not the parents that are breaking the law.

So, I ask again, how can you “almost categorically say” that the parent here deserved to be reported” even when the police have reviewed every single communication between the parents and school and even between the parents and their friends and family and found not a single communication that constitutes any kind of harassment or malicious communication and have concluded that the school’s allegations against the parents were false?

What is your “almost categorical” belief based on? Presumably you have some evidence to support it?

Do tell us all.

So your evidence for your assertion that the parents in this case were in the wrong and deserved to be banned from school property and accused falsely of crimes which the police have confirmed did not take place is….?

we’re all waiting to hear.

Moglet4 · Today 19:03

As you must surely know, from having read all of the reporting on this story, there has never been any suggestion that they behaved aggressively on school grounds, or on phone calls.

The only suggestions about that come from the fevered minds of some posters here.

You appear to be projecting massively here. Filling gaps in knowledge with pure conjecture and deciding it’s true. Whippy is too.

Do you work in a school? Have you been abused by parents? If so, I am sorry for you and it shouldn’t have happened. I get that this can be a problem. But the fact that this can be a problem does not constitute evidence that it was in this case. School staff have also been known to abuse their position and we know in this case the HT has indulged themself in a massive overreach in trying to censor the free speech of parents in private conversations with their friends. So anyone with experience of being badly treated by a HT on an ego trip could equally project that they’re entirely in the wrong, in the way that you have re the parents.

The police did not find evidence to prosecute, despite descending mob-handed and completely OTT to this couple’s home, arresting them, searching their tech and despite the testimony of the school staff. That’s what we know. It’s reasonable to conclude the evidence was not there because criminality was not perpetrated.

"the fact they found ‘insufficient’ hard evidence to press charges is frankly irrelevant."

Such a worrying statement.

Also feeling unsafe and being unsafe are not the same things, that's why we have laws. The school grounds are private property and so (hopefully within reason - unlike this case), "feeling unsafe" is sufficient to ban from school grounds. It is not sufficient to report to the police!! Can you imagine if every time someone felt uncomfortable or unsafe but no crime had been committed they called the police? I mean, what if I felt like some of the comments on this thread made me feel unsafe? Would everyone be OK with being arrested, their devices seized and then random people on the internet demanding all sorts like full release of WhatsApp conversations and emails discussing the medical needs of their children?

You have the cheek to talk about illogical reasoning whilst blatantly ignoring the qualifier in my sentence? That means half of what you’ve written should automatically be disregarded. Apparently, you are incapable of comprehension when it comes to reporting too. They were reported because staff felt threatened by them, not just because of the WA messages but because of their behaviour on the school grounds too. In every other public facing job, the bar is actually very low to be arrested but when it comes to school staff they’re just expected to put up with anything and not complain. If you think that ‘some’ parents are ‘unpleasant’ then you are utterly clueless. Yes, it is ‘some’ parents - in some schools this is a minority; in others, unfortunately, it is not. In the latter, ‘unpleasant’ doesn’t even remotely cover it. The police clearly acted excessively but the fact they found ‘insufficient’ hard evidence to press charges is frankly irrelevant. Staff should not have to work in an environment where they feel unsafe- considering what staff in many, many schools put up with on a daily basis without involving the police yes, I can ‘almost categorically’ say that they should have been reported. It’s a shame more headteachers don’t take this approach, actually. Maybe then teachers and site staff would feel at least as safe as bus drivers and nurses.

Moglet4

....I can almost categorically say that he deserved to be reported.

Oh dear, another poster who hasn't read the thread, never mind the Police statement, which said that not a single WhatsApp post, or email, could be considered to be harassment.

Great. Do share with us your evidence for your assertion that you can “categorically say that he deserved to be reported”.

It would be very interesting to see the evidence you have to support this very strong (categorical!) assertion, giventhat it directly conflicts with the public statements of the police who have reviewed every single communication not just between the school and parents (all of which were in writing, per the school’s own - illegal - demands) but have also reviewed all of the family’s private communications to their friends and family via Whatsapp or text etc, which were nothing to do with the school in the first place. Yet they found no evidence in any of these communications at all - not one single message evidencing harassment or malicious communications or any other kind of crime - to support what you, apparently, “categorically” can tell us.

Do please tell us what you basis for this categorical assertion is. I’m sure many others would love to know, not just me. Clearly you have some evidence that the police did not have access to. Very interesting! I can’t wait to hear about it. I’m sure it’s not just delusional prejudice which means you believe that schools must always be right and parents always wrong when there’s a dispute, or that you’re so irrational you believe that because some parents are unreasonable and unpleasant to school staff that means that if there is ever a dispute between school staff and parents the parents are automatically wrong, because surely nobody with that level of incapacity for logical reasoning would decide that a career in teaching was a good idea?

I can’t wait to hear your explanation.

According the police, what they did was precisely nothing. Apparently you know better, since you keep asserting this. Care to share your evidence of this to substantiate your assertions?

I agree that 6 police officers is excessive but other than that, I can almost categorically say that he deserved to be reported. I don’t think the general public have the slightest idea what abuse school staff are subjected to daily and the school had already banned him from the site long before the WA messages. As for the appointment, as I understand it, they had an interim appointment until the recruitment process could get underway - this is absolutely normal.

TheCastleDoesNotReply · Today 17:10

Rather, in this case the police found no evidence of any crime having been committed at all. They have publicly stated that they could not even find one single communication that met the definition of any offence, so brought no charges.

I know, right? It's almost as if some posters haven't read the entire story, or else, are following some sort of agenda.

You seem rather confused. This wasn’t a decision the CPS made after a charge about whether there was a realistic prospect of prosecution. The parents were never charged with any crime at all, because the police could find no evidence of any crime, even having been in the rare situation where all possible evidence about the case was in writing so they had all of it, didn’t have to rely on witnesses or subjective or biased accounts. They reviewed the entire thing, all communication over more than 6 months proceeding the arrests, in writing. And concluded there was not a shred of evidence of any crime ”harassment” or “malicious communications”, per the police’s public statements on the matter.

The police didn’t present a case to the CPS following identification of evidence of a crime and charging people with that crime, and the CPS decide there wasn’t a realistic prospect of prosecution, as you seem to be attempting to imply (although it’s hard to tell due to your flimsy grasp of the law and weird, unsubstantiated and slightly deranged comments). Rather, in this case the police found no evidence of any crime having been committed at all. They have publicly stated that they could not even find one single communication that met the definition of any offence, so brought no charges.

It would therefore never have got as far as anyone in the CPS even looking at it to consider likelihood of successful prosecution because the CPS determine whether to prosecute when the police have determined that there is evidence of a crime and have brought charges. No charges were ever brought by the police to then send to the CPS for them to consider prosecuting. The CPS don’t spend their time looking at false allegations where the police have investigated the matter and found no evidence that a crime has taken place.

Arguably, since the school had made false allegations about a crime that has been proved not to have ever taken place, the school staff should be charged with wasting police time.

What’s most disturbing about these threads is that the people who are apparently teachers have no idea how the legal system functions, no idea about the laws governing their own professionbwhich they seem happy to advocate being broken regarding GDPR and data protection as well as their legal responsibilities to children, and no clue about anything much at all as far as I can tell, aside from a complete lack of any capability for rational thought.