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

The whole letter.

What comments were before the 'control freak'? Given the school has had to have responded to something in order to be called a control freak or else if there were no comments prior to that then the issue never happened.

So my query is - what are the comments that lead to this? The comments that the family have not shared.

Nope but I know how school budgets work. I also know how legal teams work within schools for such matters.

Do you know the school?

Do you know the school?

The legal team is part of the services they have access to alongside everything else. You do know certain things are ring-fenced in schools budget wise so the PE budget cannot be transferred for glue sticks or legal services for example. The budget is set with each element being ring-fenced.

It is very clear that legal advice has been shared with the letter.

They can’t afford glue sticks but they’ve paid for legal advice, really?

Neither letter that has been posted (by me. I assume these are the ones you mean) on this thread imply, infer or state that they have taken legal advice on this matter and are implementing said advice so no, it is not evident that they have taken legal advice on this matter.

Thing is, we know there are parents who are aggressive and will scream and shout at teachers and we all (hopefully) agree that this should not be allowed, nor should vindictive or bullying behaviour. It would be legitimate to ban parents if this had happened.

However, it seems in this case this is not what happened. The criticisms I've read were not vicious or personal. Calling someone a control freak who is attempting to police the contents of a private whatsapp group that doesn't include them might not be particularly "nice" but it's not exactly inaccurate either.

The school might not have "set" the police on this couple but they did set things in motion. I'd expect that sort of response to be reserved for much more serious offences.

I also understand that the police have to investigate in order to gather evidence, but I would hope that they would have at least some very strong reason to start this process in the first place, which again seems not to be the case here.

Which bit of the letter?

The letter that shows this.

@whippy1981 please can you provide the link / evidence for this statement "They have had legal advice that states that it did which is evident."

Well no one knows what you said because it will have been edited.

Nope if you have read it properly then you will understand what I have said.

I said she didn't say to stop discussing school matters. Nowhere on that letter did it say you must not speak about school matters. It specifically said stop HOW you are discussing this as it is causing harm. It said it is harassment and defamatory.

Not quite sure you understand the difference between discussing a topic as a mature person and being defamatory and harassing someone because that person is immature.

They have had legal advice that states that it did which is evident.

Why are they not? Costs! Being one. Schools cannot afford glue sticks nevermind the legal costs surrounding taking parents to court who want to harm staff.

They did send a letter asking them to stop or there will be legal consequences!

So, you've gone from saying that she didn't order them to stop to admitting that she did. You then claim, without a scrap of evidence, that it passed the legal bar for defamation.

If so, why aren't they up for libel, or not had a cease and desist letter, from a solicitor?

Hint she didn't say school matters couldn't be discussed.

She did order them to stop such discussions (defamatory and harassing communications) as it was causing harm but not that school matters couldn't be discussed. It was how it was being discussed that was the problem not what was being discussed.

The two things are different.

They didn't order them to discuss school matters.

Oh dear. What was the point of the WhatsApp exchange, if that is true? Hint: she did order them not to have such a discussion and it's why she banned them from the school - they ignored her and carried on.

As copied from numerous sources online.

The couple did use the school’s complaints procedure.

What was the conduct that met the “harassment” threshold?

What was said that amounted to defamation?

The police would act on the information the school gave them. Did the school tell them they had a couple of parents who were being rude/mean or that they had to parents ho were harassing and being abusive to teachers? Both of those would depend on the interpretation of one or maybe two people at school.

The police review of their actions didn’t conclude it was a proportional response. They said it could have been done with maybe to officers and could have been handled better.

All schools have a complaints procedure which this couple chose not to use, but to harass and defame the chair of governors, who is a volunteer.
No, the school cannot respond about individuals.
Finally, the school have no authority to tell the police how to respond. The police made the decision to respond in the way they did, and a review of their actions concluded their response was proportional.

I have to say that @whippy1981 makes a pretty compelling point to me. I see nothing but reasoned points here. Because the majority feel certain things, that means nothing to me now based on the misinformed views I often see online.

Having my own struggles with school SEN issues, there absolutely is a way to conduct oneself through this. If there's evidence to show us that polite requests and Comms were blocked by the school for no good reason, I'm not ok with it. I'm not ok if a parent was threatened on the playground.

Various things can at once be true here.

With my own issues, I learnt about the legislation. I consulted free legal advice. I sought guidance online ANONYMOUSLY through certain groups not naming the school or teachers PUBLICLY because I understand that it can become a cesspit of toxicity. Private discussion remained private between myself and one other. I would personally never criticise an individual and instead would highlight problematic behaviour and why. That is something different. I also feel we aren't seeing all the messages.

Is there no higher governance board to which concerns can be raised to avoid these WhatsApp group toxic chats. I can believe there are genuine issues the family have with the school on some levels.

Context is incredibly important - a WhatsApp group of parents, including those with influence - yes, it feels toxic.

I am no fan of what I believe schools are capable of. What I have seen. Are there not better ways. This fuels the struggles we already have in the dynamic between parents and teachers.

What do teachers think about this,??

Will we ever hear from the school?

By this logic 98% of rape allegations are untrue because only 2% result in a charge?

They didn't order them to discuss school matters. So when the police come into schools and tell kids they shouldn't carry knives or start fires etc or they can be arrested that is the police bullying kids? How is it bullying telling someone to abide by the law and not cause harm?

The parents have admitted that they have repeatedly done things to this member of staff on purpose and it has caused upset.

The police found insufficient evidence. The police have not said they have no evidence. Insufficient doesn;t mean none. The police also do not make that judgement to NFA, the CPS do. So no the police have not said that. As stated before, when I was raped and the rapist confessed, the police said insufficient evidence in my case despite there being a confession. The CPS want the evidence to lead to a prosecution, if the CPS see what they have and think it is insufficient to lead to a prosecution they will say NFA. Which means no further action.

The known facts that the parents admitted to it and wanted to continue which meets the definition of harassment if they did.

So anyone who disagrees with you is linked to the acting head? How ludicrous! You do know that MN is a global site and millions can and do use it.

I wouldn't assume you are linked to the parents and all who agree with them are linked. That would be a bit pathetic to suggest that is the case. I think people can and do make their own minds up. Is that because you have nothing else and think that because you think what you do that only those linked to the acting head could think what I do?

People have their own minds. Sorry to burst your bubble. I can believe what I want based on the facts known. We know they did things and have admitted to it. We know they said they wanted to carry on. We also know they have omitted things.

The information that they have shared is not all the conversations so yes some have been omitted.

The police will NFA for a whole host of reasons. As I stated before when I was raped the police NFA'd it saying lack of evidence when the rapist had confessed. The CPS make that decision not the police. The police didn't say they found nothing. They said insufficient evidence which means that the CPS think there isn't enough to get a successful prosecution. It doesn't mean there wasn't any.

Nice deflection with the edit comment. Deflection that I agreed with you and so you now have to focus on something else because I said i agreed with you which pissed on your fabrication! ha!

Basically what you did was because I disagree with taking this at face value and am not critical of the school because I want to know what the parents have omitted and why then you think I am not critical of any school. Just because you are critical of this school I would be wrong to say you hate all schools. Which is kind of what you were doing as an opposite to me.

And when I agreed with you and said that sometimes schools get it wrong instead of being mature and accepting that you then deflect onto the edit button.

Please complain to MN to get the edit button removed. I can't wait to see you ask ppl who agree with you why they edit things too. Not sure you will because you only do that as deflection to me.

So there is nothing the school did that meets the definition of bullying. Some ppl have no idea and rattle out the word when someone gets upset

Sorry, but that's absolute claptrap. Ordering parents not to discuss school matters and threatening them with arrest absolutely is bullying.

Your claim that the parents are bullies doesn't hold water, it's the same mentality of a six year old, who thinks that someone disagreeing with them is a bully.

Your bold claims are entirely unsupported by the facts, which are that the Police found no evidence and indeed, couldn't point out to the couple what was supposed to have been the abusive / bullying / harassing text.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm incapable of debating, it's what I'm doing now. I base my comments on the known facts, whereas you are "what abouting." You have no evidence to back your claims. All of it counters what you say and I'm starting to think that you are arguing in bad faith, or maybe connected to the former acting head.

Why do you keep editing your posts? I was about to start looking through your posts like you asked (before realising that would be a ridiculous waste of my time) and this one had been edited by the time I clicked back (less than 5 mins).

You also had the exact same farcical argument with another poster, who gave up in what appears sheer exasperation.

I look forward to your nonsensical, 500 word, twice edited reply 😀