Shocking article about teacher being sacked for questioning transing of an 8 year old

She followed the rules.

The rules for safeguarding a vulnerable child.

And for those who say she was wrong to access information on a child after being told to avoid contact with that child, she already had that information. That information was the reason she raised concerns, before she was told to avoid the child. She was told to avoid the child precisely because she raised concerns relevant to the information about the child.

TribunalTweets had permission to tweet the jr court sessions at the time. There's a bit more information there. I'm not clear but I think it's implied that the child has SEN. The child was bullied in their previous school. Stonewall as an organisation was not involved directly but the Local Authority is Stonewalled.

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/primary-teacher-vs-local-authority

She was sacked for gross misconduct for sharing details of this child to her lawyers- not for her beliefs.

Except sharing details with her legal team is allowed under legal privilege.

She was sacked for gross misconduct for sharing details of this child to her lawyers- not for her beliefs.

She broke the rules.

Try reading the article instead of clutching your pearls, please.

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

The point stands that a teacher who has been told not to be involved with a particular child is quite likely to be in trouble for accessing or trying to access information about that child regardless of the reason why, especially when that teacher already has a suspension under their belt.

Lockheart - "it sounds like the gross misconduct happened at the point she accessed the school system specifically to get information on the child. To me it sounds like she had sadly become quite obsessed with this child and it was starting to stray into some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking."

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".

Get a grip!

https://christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/judge-refuses-permission-for-judicial-review-in-school-transgender-safeguarding-case/

I think it is the same case yes.

I think this part of the information on that website is pertinent:

"...no alternative but to get legal advice and pursue legal action.

For accessing and sharing information about Child X as part of receiving legal advice and raising serious safeguarding concerns, Hannah was investigated and brought before a governors disciplinary panel.

They concluded that she would be sacked for gross misconduct..."

Given she had previously been told to have no or limited interaction with this child, it sounds like the gross misconduct happened at the point she accessed the school system specifically to get information on the child. To me it sounds like she had sadly become quite obsessed with this child and it was starting to stray into some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking.

This this the same teacher who pursued a judicial review against the school and the local authority about ignoring safeguarding concerns, but the judge refused permission for jr? The details of the case sounds very similar.

christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/judge-refuses-permission-for-judicial-review-in-school-transgender-safeguarding-case/

Can you imagine how legal representation would work if clients weren't able to tell their solicitors anything related to their case.

The difference would be if they were duty-bound to keep certain information confidential -for example about a child, patient or so on.

This seems to be at the heart of the issue and so I wonder what lawyers here think?

She wasn't sacked for telling her solicitors the name of the child. That's perfectly normal legal privilege.

Can you imagine how legal representation would work if clients weren't able to tell their solicitors anything related to their case.

It seems it's always Christian teachers who are the ones pushing back publicly. I think it's partly because it's easier to bring a case around the protected characteristics of religion, and also because Christian Legal Centre are taking cases to challenge gender ideology in schools and are good at publicising their cases.

It's become more misogynistic, more segregated than it was then. Yet, girls have more rights and options than they ever have had. I don't get it!

These two things are very tightly linked. The first is BECAUSE of the second. It's pushback.

This is only gonna get worse, the Lg**q just getting stronger with their ideologies and forces others to accept it.
I hope the teacher wins the case.
The other day I nearly spat my tea hearing a man say he loves fishing and is a Fisherthem, WTF 🤨 even the English dictionary is confused 🤦🏻‍♀️
They come out with so much crap and we have to oblige🤔 No I refuse this stupidity it's ridiculous and I won't play their dirty mind games.
They can do what they want but hell don't force us into it, if they got rights then so do we 🙏

So she shared info about the child in a confidential meeting with solicitors as part of obtaining legal advice? Perfectly normal and no harm done. Any info shared is kept confidential under legal privilege. The solicitors won’t be leaking it to the local press.

The child’s trans status has already been publicised, by themselves and others, as they have been socially transitioned. Everyone in that school knows they used to be know by one set of pronouns and name and now they wish to be referred to by another name and the pronouns used for the opposite sex. Everyone knows they are actually one sex but want to present and be treated as the other.

This is quite clearly just an excuse to sack the teacher. A hook to hang the sacking on, that they’d already decided on. Hopefully a tribunal will have the nous to see through it.

Same, when I think back to my childhood, I'm so happy to have had freedom to be me. It's become state sanctioned grooming in plain sight..the lunatics have taken over the asylum ..
Ironically, all the reasons I wanted to be a boy are no longer obstacles in life. Girls can join front line forces, play football, do 'boy' sports, more clothing choices.
It's become more misogynistic, more segregated than it was then. Yet, girls have more rights and options than they ever have had. I don't get it!

This - she wasn't sacked "for using the wrong pronouns" and it's extremely misleading and goady of the media to pretend she was.

I grew up in the 70s and was also like this. Boys had the best stuff so I dressed like they did and all of my friends were boys for years. No one told me I WAS a boy FFS.

Something has gone so terribly terribly wrong when schools can place a child in danger like this and the one who doesn't go along with it is the one the one in trouble.

I wonder what the insurers would say when something happens to that female child.

I bet the mum of all the boys would be fuming too. How dare they lose their privacy so schools don't have to say no.. Someone's identity is theirs and theirs alone. Nothing to do aitg anyone else and no one has any obligation to be a part of it.

Well done to that teacher fir speaking out.

Ah essential principle of safeguarding is that confidentiality must be breached in order to in order to safeguard the vulnerable party.

Another principle of safeguarding is that if the Designated Safeguarding Lead is part of your safeguarding concern, bypass them and refer it higher, even to an appropriate external agency. How high did this teacher refer? Did she follow the protocol, or jump from DSL to legal action?

In years to come, that child may look back and wonder what the fuck everyone else was doing whilst someone was looking out for her welfare.

I wanted to be a boy because they had more comfortable and practical clothes, and better bikes… and my friends were all boys.

Im so grateful that I grew up in the 70s, before feeling like this was made such a big deal of.

I have no idea what people in this situation are able to tell their lawyers. So part of me is curious. Are they not allowed to give the child's name? Obviously the individual child is not part of the legal dispute between the teacher and the school, so maybe it's something like that.

But my post was simply to point out that the sacking (as opposed to the disciplinary actions) was not for misgendering or dead naming, as has been assumed by many. It was for breaching confidentially.

She spoke in confidence to her lawyers as a whistleblower in the interests of safeguarding the child.

She respected GDPR, she did not break it.

It's not like she revealed confidential information about a child to the newspapers. That would be a breach of GDPR.

The safeguarding concerns were over allowing the girl to use the boys changing rooms and toilets. Which is a very valid concern imo.

And now I've managed to access the Telegraph version, it says the same

The teacher, who is now working in a sandwich shop, claims that she was sacked for gross misconduct after she shared information about the child with her lawyers in preparation for a judicial review claim against the school and the council. She said that the school has reported her to the Teacher Regulation Agency for an alleged confidentiality breach, which means she could face a lifelong ban from the profession.

No, she was sacked for breaching confidentiality.

Since her warnings, the woman says she has been sacked for gross misconduct after sharing information about the child with her lawyers in preparation for a judicial review claim against the school and the council.

Presumably she identified the child and gave more information than was needed to support her claim.

The warnings were about her refusal to use the preferred name and pronouns, but the claimed sacking was over a breach of confidentiality.