Safeguarding is a valid reason to breach confidentiality. In my work I always make it clear "anything you say to me will remain confidential and just between us UNLESS you mention something that suggests an element of risk in which case I would have to inform a third party for your own safety.
Sounds like the local authority (or whoever is responsible for the sacking) have used confidentiality breach as an excuse rather than considering the context.

Her religious beliefs have the potential to colour the courts judgement and may indeed be the main driver for her own behaviour - we can't really know that either. Is she genuinely concerned for the child's wellbeing or does she just believe children shouldn't be transitioned? It's a subtle but important distinction.

I guess it will come down to whether she can prove her actions were in response to an actual risk (or a sincere belief in risk), or whether the other side can show that her actions were driven by her personal view of gender ideology and it was not in response to risk / a sincere belief of risk.

Absolutely. A tribunal judgement is made on the balance of probability, not proof beyond all doubt.
How she and her legal team frame her case, and how she holds up in cross examination will be key to this IMO.
No, I'm not a lawyer but I successfully brought, researched and fought my own case after being let go unfairly due to maternity leave. As part of my prep, I went and watched another tribunal to see how it all worked. If she gets caught up in the religious belief side of her case, either as part of her leading argument or under cross examination I suspect she'll lose. If it comes down to "belief wars", it's also then going to place more scrutiny on whether she followed the correct safeguarding/whistleblowing process. So, the actual issue of safeguarding (which sounds very real) could well get lost.
Happy to be pulled up on any of that by someone who knows about employment law. I'm just someone who dived in to it for a specific reason.

I suspect that, like many people here, the teacher thought it harmful for an eight year old to think they can change sex, and also harmful to give the rest of the children that idea.

Exactly. Most teachers care about the wellbeing of the children they teach. It's absurd to assume that a Christian teacher's only objection to gender ideology is rooted in their religion, and not in the harm it is doing to the children.

Lockheart · Today 20:52

There are people who will object to the transitioning of children because they believe being trans is wrong, deviant, immoral, sinful or otherwise against their beliefs (religious or otherwise) while having no actual concerns for the well-being of the child yes.

I suspect that, like many people here, the teacher thought it harmful for an eight year old to think they can change sex, and also harmful to give the rest of the children that idea.

The teacher’s Christianity might have led to her feeling morally obligated to stand up for the child and the other children’s right to the truth about this most fundamental aspect of life. But it is a fundamental truth whether a Christian person thinks God created it or an atheist thinks it was the Big Bang alone.

I think maybe the same case could have different outcomes according to whether the teacher has brought Christianity into it or not - the introduction Christianity into the case being more likely to lead to it being lost. That is if it lays the teacher open to the accusation that they were not truly trying to safeguard the child, but just believed that the child being trans was deviant or immoral (as you hypothesised could be the interpretation).

In fact without any religion at all a lot of people would basically think it is deeply immoral to encourage a child in a pathway that could lead to enormous harm to them. But they probably wouldn’t bother with using the word immoral as a description.

It is unfair that someone religious could be deemed to have a ‘faulty’ reason for thinking that transing a child is wrong but the motives of an atheist with the same view accepted as valid.

This is all guessing though. We shall see what happens.

Lockheart - "You've just copied the exact section I copied from the website. Our two quotes say exactly the same thing."

Yes. I was commenting on your leap of the imagination into "some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking".

To repeat:

What it actually says is: "For accessing and sharing information about Child X as part of receiving legal advice and raising serious safeguarding concerns"

Perfectly legitimate and no reason whatsoever to suggest that "it was starting to stray into some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking".

You know that "harassment" and "stalking" have legal definitions?

Elsewhere you quote AM, counsel for the respondents, as reported by Tribunal Tweets:

"C obsessively trawled the school records for information to support her case."

AM also describes this activity as "snooping".

It is AM's job to cast C's accessing of Child X's records in the worst possible light, eg. by using terms such as "obsessively trawling" and "snoop".

Perhaps C did. Or perhaps C was exercising due diligence in her concern for safeguarding? All that can be said objectively is:

"an audit of C's access to school records, accessing and surveilling information relating to Child X. Various dates, post dating the correspondence with the governors. No matters complained of to the school."

The facts are not disputed but you are going well beyond the negative interpretation put forward by AM and into the realms of fantasy.

That could hardly be considered a legitimate risk of harm though. I don't think saying you are concerned for someone's soul (or similar) is a legitimate defence in this scenario. It's the same sort of reason as to why protestors praying directly outside abortion clinics aren't allowed, and if you start ranting in the street at gay people to repent the police will probably want a word.

If someone is genuinely concerned that a child is at risk of physical or mental harm, abuse etc that is a very different matter to saying "I believe they will go to [insert purgatory of your choice] because they are trans therefore I broke GDPR".

Maybe it will stand up, but I personally doubt it. Religious beliefs are valid and are protected, but not to the extent that you're allowed to breach confidentiality / break the law.

But if they see 'being trans' (a phrase in dire need of a definition) as being immoral or sinful then they presumably think this is harmful for the individual (for their soul, or something - I'm not religious). Isn't it the harm to the individual that they are concerned about? Otherwise why be concerned at all about something that someone else is doing?

As for abortion, isn't their objection that the unborn child (with a soul) is being denied the chance of life?

In the Bell case, the initial result was that under-16s cannot consent to puberty blockers and that was in December 2020, however that was overturned on appeal in September 2021, so about the same time that this chain of events kicked off.

Not sure about the Nolan report podcast though!

There are people who will object to the transitioning of children because they believe being trans is wrong, deviant, immoral, sinful or otherwise against their beliefs (religious or otherwise) while having no actual concerns for the well-being of the child yes.

Just like there are people who are against abortion but whose objections come from a place of ideology, not out of genuine concern for the child / mother.

Is she genuinely concerned for the child's wellbeing or does she just believe children shouldn't be transitioned? It's a subtle but important distinction.

What is the distinction that you see here? Surely people who believe that children shouldn't be transitioned hold that view because they think that this is harmful to children. Do you think there are people who think that transing children is harmless, but they still object to it (why)?

*Lockheart+ · Today 18:59
The interim Cass report was Feb 2022 and according to the timeline from christianconcern above, the child in this case joined the school in Sept 2021 and the school had implemented their new policy sometime ahead of that date, so well before the Cass report. The teacher was suspended in Sept 2021, returned to work and raised their first formal concern in Oct 2021, and raised another formal concern again in Feb 2022. I'm not sure of the date she was sacked, but the timeline of events straddle the Cass report

Then the school cannot be blamed so much for having such a detrimental policy. But the teacher’s view that their affirmation was harmful to the child was confirmed by the Cass report.

When was the outcome of the Keira Bell case out? And the Nolan Report podcast with David Bell talking about the Tavistock?

I think they're just describing what happened at the time and confirming the school hadn't had any more issues raised internally from her, I don't think the implication there is that it was dodgy.

The interim Cass report was Feb 2022 and according to the timeline from christianconcern above, the child in this case joined the school in Sept 2021 and the school had implemented their new policy sometime ahead of that date, so well before the Cass report. The teacher was suspended in Sept 2021, returned to work and raised their first formal concern in Oct 2021, and raised another formal concern again in Feb 2022. I'm not sure of the date she was sacked, but the timeline of events straddle the Cass report.

If the Cass report says that social transition in school is not a neutral act, then safeguarding issues should be raised.

I feel like I'm missing something.

Fair enough, Lockheart, I hadn't seen that. And if that timeline is accurate, then it is arguable that she breached safeguarding protocol, which is that the reporter should not carry out any investigation. That is inappropriate.

"No matters complained of to the school." Taking her concerns outside the school, however, is not inappropriate. She had already reported her concerns to the DSL and to the next safeguarding level up, the governors. It is appropriate to take safeguarding concerns outside the school if they are not being dealt with appropriately within the school. Given they had poopooed her concerns in the first place, why would she 'complain' to them again?

Isn't it a bit dodgy to describe raising a safeguarding concern as 'complaining'?

When did this happen to the teacher?
Before or after the interim Cass report?
Because if after, the school was lacking if they never bothered to read it given they had an eight year old wanting a transgender identity to be affirmed.

I'm pretty sure the child's name would need to be divulged at some point purely for practical reasons so the respondents can argue their case, but I think the main issue is the teachers repeated searching of the child's records and what else she may have divulged (which of course we don't know).

Her religious beliefs have the potential to colour the courts judgement and may indeed be the main driver for her own behaviour - we can't really know that either. Is she genuinely concerned for the child's wellbeing or does she just believe children shouldn't be transitioned? It's a subtle but important distinction.

I guess it will come down to whether she can prove her actions were in response to an actual risk (or a sincere belief in risk), or whether the other side can show that her actions were driven by her personal view of gender ideology and it was not in response to risk / a sincere belief of risk.

It will need to be proved that the child in this case was / is at risk of actual harm from gender ideology so that the teacher was right to access and share that information, and that the teacher was not just accessing and sharing that information to try and fight her suspension / warnings, or to bolster her own personal arguments(potentially also idealogically-driven given the involvement of certain Christian campaign groups) against the child's social transition.

It is confusing why she needed to divulge the child’s name? Would that ever necessary to bring her case?

Although the EA says religious beliefs are protected, maybe really they are just seen as ideologies.

The protected characteristic “Gender Reassignment” would no doubt not be seen as an ideology.

Nobody wants to protect Christians or Muslims against transgender policies as those are part of being the all encompassing LBGTQ+ which includes being gay.

People of those religions are seen as bigoted fundamentalists if they do not endorse anything LGBTQ. It is not wise to say you are Christian if you want to object.

KCSIE mentions (several times as well, not just in point 57) that DPA 2018 / GDPR do not stand in the way of safeguarding, but - and this will be the crucial test I think - only where there is a genuine risk to a child's well-being. Accessing and sharing a child's information without authorisation is of course in itself a safeguarding risk.

It will need to be proved that the child in this case was / is at risk of actual harm from gender ideology so that the teacher was right to access and share that information, and that the teacher was not just accessing and sharing that information to try and fight her suspension / warnings, or to bolster her own personal arguments (potentially also idealogically-driven given the involvement of certain Christian campaign groups) against the child's social transition.

Igmum · Yesterday 19:48
Definitely basic safeguarding. I hope the interim Cass Review will help this teacher's case (and I also hope she wins BIG)

It is and I hope this helps her win.

But though she has brought up safeguarding for the child, I worry because she has also brought her “Religious Beliefs” into the case.

I am thinking of the mother who based on her Christian beliefs didn’t want her very young child forced to go on a Pride March by her primary school headteacher. She lost. https://christianconcern.com/news/parents-to-appeal-in-4-year-old-forced-pride-parade-case/

"57. DPA and UK GDPR do not prevent the sharing of information for the purposes of keeping children safe and promoting their welfare. If in any doubt about sharing information, staff should speak to the designated safeguarding lead (or a deputy). Fears about sharing information must not be allowed to stand in the way of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children"

One thing that strikes me about KCSIE is that most things say speak to a 'designated safeguarding lead' for any safeguarding concerns- but what if you think the safeguarding lead(s) are not acting in children's best interests? Seems to me from reading it through if you wanted to harm children (or push an ideology) becoming the DSL would be the way to go. You could dismiss concerns brought to you by staff and what could they then do?

It explicitly states in the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools - Keeping Children Safe in Education - that safeguarding overrides GDPR and if someone is raising a safeguarding concern they cannot be prosecuted for GDPR breaches. Otherwise safeguarding could never happen.

No she didn't already have it all and she persisted in looking for it after she had been told to stop. If you read the afternoon transcript from Tribunal Tweets (<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140309/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1584893219787378688.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140309/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1584893219787378688.html), the evidence is that the teacher was searching school records for information on this child well after she had already been writing to governors etc, which itself was after she had been told to not get involved with the child according to the timeline from the Christian legal website above.

I have copied the transcript from TT below, bold emphasis is my own (this is from the respondent's - the school's - counsel):

"C accessed the child's personal information in violation of GDPR after she had written to the chair of governors and the chair responded. C obsessively trawled the school records for information to support her case. AM conts - an audit of C's access to school records, accessing and surveilling information relating to Child X. Various dates, post dating the correspondence with the governors. No matters complained of to the school."

The rules for safeguarding a vulnerable child.

Yes! This.

The TribunalTweets - the Counsel for the respondents states that Hannah was breaching GDPR. I don't know the ins and outs of GDPR, but I think this part could play a major part in the upcoming tribunal.