Aware of Head Teacher and Teacher affair

'You think the police will act on someone saying you think there is a crime because someone has been seen standing on a street and then think the police won't act because someone has been malicious and making false accusations.'

You have said repeatedly that an event has to be witnessed before it is reported, this is not true. Suspicions are enough. So while the police may not act on someone's concerns it is still ok to raise them then it is up to the professionals to decide how to proceed. Ditto with Heads and governing bodies.

It is tricky as these governor organisations are really just PTA with meetings minuted but even so they would take this allegation seriously and conduct appropriate confidential meetings to establish facts.

It is harassment to report someone going about their daily business as being up to no good and sharing false information with the aim to get the into trouble for doing nothing. Yes it is and as you say - they have a right to report.

You think the police will act on someone saying you think there is a crime because someone has been seen standing on a street and then think the police won't act because someone has been malicious and making false accusations.

Imagine that - police with their sirens on for someone standing on a street and then ignoring someone trying to harm someone else maliciously.

It does come under the harassment law and malicious communications.

I don't but reporting minor neglect with a minor bit of evidence will not get SS involvement. They will 'turn a blind eye' or sorry I mean follow the process!

The OP said that it is speculation it wouldn't be if they had been seen doing something it would be factual.

So no reporting someone for being somewhere is not worthy of an investigation aside from harassment. The two may say yes they were there - that means nothing. They are allowed to meet outside of work.

I am concerned for the school dads you meet in the playground given you cannot talk to a male without assuming sex has to happen.

'The police will be called in relation to the false accusation and harassment that the parent has done. Rightly so.'

It is not harassment to raise a concern via the appropriate channels.

But something has gone on - the teachers will have been falsely accused which will have caused damages to their health and jobs. That needs dealing with and rightly so at a tribunal. You cannot falsely accuse someone of something based on them being out in public. Teachers have a right to be places.

The police will be called in relation to the false accusation and harassment that the parent has done. Rightly so.

They have a right to report, remember. So that parent should be arrested.

You don’t know what evidence I produced, so you can’t make a call on that. As I said, it was not directly witnessed by me and it was not direct abuse.

Hotel, Tesco, a car park etc – the location is immaterial, the witnessed behaviour is not. You don’t know the witnessed behaviour, you only know that the OP hasn’t detailed it on this thread.

'Nope if they are innocent then the governors will face a huge investigation with Ofsted and the DfE and the police will be involved.

Really. If nothing has gone on then the DfE and the police will be involved. Riiiight.

Maybe the police would be arresting the governors for the crime of too much Tesco talk?

The HT clearly is an absolute arsehole if they think this is ok.

You have clearly stated here that it is happening and name called the headteacher. These are your words. So you have decided it happened without investigation and you have decided they are guilty without evidence. You have then labelled that person an arsehole despite their only crime as going to a hotel.

Fucking hell imagine the complaints after the summer with all these teachers going to hotels!

None of your beeswax.

'You said it has happened and called them names. You have stated it has happened.'

I and others have said anyone who has concerns about the conduct of staff actually responsible for upholding standards in our dc's school have every right to raise those concerned via the correct channels.

I've no idea if 'it has happened' or not, but 2 people do indeed know so let the appropriate staff ask them!

Nope if they are innocent then the governors will face a huge investigation with Ofsted and the DfE and the police will be involved.

They won't have time to discuss the spring fayre as they will have a lot of legal fees to pay out and a lot of evidence to gather for their tribunal case that they will face.

That is what will happen if they did that.

That is what you are saying should happen. You think the police would investigate someone standing on a street not committing a crime?

What a crock of shite. They wouldn't at all.

Well it's better than shagging the sixth formers. There were 2 instances if this at the school I went to in the 80's. The female cookery teacher and a male student, and a male teacher with a female student. Disgusting. I don't think you should do anything with this information. I can see how abuse of power could be considered though.

You said it has happened and called them names. You have stated it has happened.

If someone reported that then what investigation would you like? Them being asked if they were there - absolutely you can and they can refuse to answer if they were there or why and nothing else can happen as a result. It cannot result in any disciplinary if they refuse to answer about there normal actions outside of work that are them not doing anything wrong.

I feel really concerned about your male colleagues. I am concerned as I know you will likely accuse them of something if you see them out of work as doing so indicates them being up to no good.

I have a right to report you based on evidence you based on my concern only and you need investigating.

'So by all means report a crime based on a thought and your mate witnessing someone standing on the street'

Yep, that is exactly how it happens! People report suspicions then the police <in your scenario> investigate and gather evidence

No, you don't have to be sure it happened. 'I have concerns that our married HT is shagging married junior staff they've been seen at a hotel together which may or may not be innocent but id like it investigating as if they are having a fling I think it casts serious doubts on the HT's standards and conduct' should suffice.

If they're innocent nothing to worry about the governors can go back to discussing the Summer Fayre.

Yes and seeing a child at a hotel is not indicative of abuse nor gives any concern of abuse.

Your evidence clearly wasn't anything like two people sitting at a hotel as that isn't evidence of anything. All it is evidence of is that they were there. Nothing else.

You do understand different situations will present differently?

No one is saying that but odd that you think that but you have to be sure it happened. And being at a hotel is not witnessing an event.

So by all means report a crime based on a thought and your mate witnessing someone standing on the street doing nothing. See where you get!

If they think what is ok? Going to a hotel?

It absolutely is ok to go to a hotel.

Investigating if someone was at a hotel isn't a cause for concern and the teachers do not have to answer to any investigation about them being there as there isn't a breach of anything in doing so.

Being concerned about a boss shagging someone and saying that you only think it and that is you concern is not reason for an investigation.

Try reporting a crime based on a thought alone and see where you get. Police will say - no investigation. If it isn't based on anything substantial then they will not investigate. Hoping the police will investigate on a thought is wishful thinking.

'I reported concerns someone had about caretaking of a child. Abuse was not witnessed. Actions that could indicate inadequate caretaking were witnessed. SS assessed these concerns and took appropriate action.'

Yes it is very strange that some think in order to raise any concern one must have directly witnessed the event. No, a concern is just that a concern to be looked into by hopefully intelligent professionals.

So it was a very serious piece of evidence you gave then which proved it otherwise it wouldn't have been.

You didn't report the family at a hotel now did you?

'So what it’s the Headmaster? In what way does it affect his ability to do his job? It doesn’t does it.'

Oh I don't know, bosses are supposed to set and uphold standards. They're supposed to adhere to codes of conduct which must surely include not chasing junior married staff.

Of course it will affect their ability to do their job. Other staff may know, there may be resentment. The HT clearly is an absolute arsehole if they think this is ok. Not great credentials for running a school, though we know many are indeed run very badly.

It's all ifs and buts. The point being if I and many others on this thread had concerns that a married boss was shagging a married junior we'd raise it via the appropriate channels and just hope the person investigating doesn't say 'ah but do you shop at Tesco eh eh? Cos that's the very same thing' .

The SS investigated it and took action. It doesn’t concern me what you think about this.

So a section 47 immediate risk of harm is from a severe piece of evidence.

I work with SS/FIS/Mash and know that this doesn't happen without serious evidence - it only happens if there is an immediate risk of harm. Again they would say it doesn't meet threshold unless the child was at serious risk.

A child being neglected is usually not a section 47 call as most are not classed as immediate risk. It would likely go in as a section 17. It would be a GCP done to assess the level of neglect and then FIS support in most cases.