Secondary School complaint about mixed sex changing rooms. Update, school response and request for help writing the escalated complaint to governors

What makes Councillor Pickett so confident that Brighton Council won't be sued?

Can you see what it is yet?

….because the teaching profession observably does not safeguard children. It’s evident it does the opposite.

This Brighton school will be following its LEA policies, specifically the infamous Trans Inclusion School’s Toolkit. In response to a legal review by Karon Monaghan KC last year, Brighton’s Labour council updated it to limit its legal liability, passing it over to head teachers and governors. Parents’ were expecting safeguarding, not the management of institutional risk of legal liability.

From the local newspaper story covering this update:

“(And) by passing off responsibility to schools by saying it is up to them to ensure compliance with evidence, policy and law and saying that the council’s toolkit is non-prescriptive schools and other educational settings are exposed to potential litigation, while enabling the council to protect itself from challenge.”

The Green Party joined in with the Labour council’s position:

”Green councillor Kerry Pickett backed the toolkit and said that local children were lucky to live in a place where their wellbeing took precedence.”

and

“Councillor Pickett said: “Shockingly, Brighton and Hove is now the only council brave enough to revise its trans toolkit and maintain its use.”

along with

“All other councils have withdrawn their toolkits, not because they don’t believe in them or think they provide good guidance, but because they have been bullied by fear that they may be sued, something few councils can ill afford.

plus

“I salute the bravery of this council to not only refuse to bow to the bully tactics of such groups but also to put the lives of these children and the staff that teach them at the forefront of policy.”

https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2025/01/31/transgender-healthcare-and-schools-policies-come-under-spotlight/

https://content.doyleclayton.co.uk/hubfs/Advice%20of%20Karon%20Monaghan%20KC.pdf

It's amazing that the lessons of PIE in the 70s weren't learnt.

What did I just read? With my own eyes? How does this shit just keep happening?!?

🤮

That was Peter Righton - Director of Education at the Institute of Social Work , consultant at the National Children's Bureau, chair of governors in a school and member of PIE. He positioned himself in positions of power in these and other institutions. He wrote academic papers and campaigned to promote "sexual relationships" between adults and children.

He was jailed for importing images of child sex abuse. A dangerous man who was able to use his powerful positions in organisations to promote paedophilia.

They're rather assuming that the parents who respond to the 'consultation' won't say 'fuck off' with removing my daughter's right to privacy, dignity and safety, too.

And also any half decent 'risk and decency' assessment would ALSO determine a boy cannot use female ss toilets without trampling all over the human rights of girls.

The extreme misogyny put in reasonable tones is so depressing.

Just read some of the first sampled paragraphs on the Twitter thread - whoever wrote this drivel either didn't read the judgment or lacks the capacity to understand it, this is wall to wall bollocks.

Well done @Keeptoiletssafe

I can't believe they have updated but still fallen short.

Oh for fucks sake.

NO. In that kind of situation the child uses staff toilets, or the disabled toilet, for a week, it's not in the least difficult and no embarrassment to anyone, that kid included. What kind of twit is writing this nonsense? There is no time and no situation in which the girls can be sacrificed for and to a special boy.

I think edapt are regretting posting that article.
However, they have now got most of my correspondence with the DfE for reading.

Case Study 4: Temporary access in an emergency
Scenario: Taylor is a Year 9 pupil, who identifies as female and is legally male (based on biological sex). They normally use a separate unisex facility near the library. Due to a burst pipe, that facility and the nearby accessible toilet are out of order for several days. Their only option is to use the boys’ toilets or not attend school. Taylor’s parent asks if they can use the girls’ toilets temporarily.
School’s response: The school considers the situation an emergency. The girls’ toilets are multi-cubicle with floor-to-ceiling partitions and individual locking doors. After a risk and dignity assessment, and in consultation with parents and staff, the school agrees that Taylor may use a specific cubicle in the girls’ toilets for no more than one week while repair work is completed. A clear plan is documented, with signage, timetable adjustments to avoid crowding, and a commitment to return to previous arrangements as soon as the separate toilet is available.
Legal position: This may be lawful in an exceptional, time-limited emergency if the school can demonstrate that:

• The inclusion was the least intrusive option available;
• It did not compromise the long-term legal status of the girls’ toilet;
• The decision was proportionate, documented, and reversed once the disruption ended.

-------------

So they are not providing single sex toilets for the girls on a temporary basis. Is that what they are saying? I thought schools had to provide single sex toilets.

Yes, these things appear to happen frequently

I was only listening to a UK podcast a few weeks ago that I came across - no idea what one, sorry, so I can’t direct you there - but it said a member of (I think) PIE was a social worker, became a university lecturer and then wrote the major text book for social work students thereby influencing generations of them and the regulatory bodies.

This man was deeply creepy.

The regulatory bodies were specifically targeted by Stonewall - Social Work England, the CQC, even I think the GMC.
It's why these lobby groups have been able to so comprehensively dilute safeguarding for such an exceptionally vulnerable group of children.

I didn't know this. Ofsted, FFS! 🙄 I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised. Thankfully things are on the move now.

I actually agree if HTs have followed illegal LA advice, they have more cover and then the accountability for the breaking of the law resides with those in the LA who imposed this. However, you'd hope good teachers would say 'but doesn't this conflict with safeguarding....?' over something so obvious. I expect many did and have kept the emails.

All this highlights how catastrophic it's been to allow political activists / queer theorists to influence local authorities, regulatory bodies and national / local governments. Even Ofsted were banging the Stoneall drum citing failure to address trans issues as one of the reasons for finding fault in some primary schools. It was an FOI that revealed Stonewall's complaining letter that Ofsted inspectors weren't speaking to little children often enough about trans issues and the Daily Telegraph picked it up.

So Ofsted - then a Stonewall champion - were complying with Stonewall's demands and imposing, via the Ofsted framework, gender identity and queer theory on the youngest children. That's why we're in this mess.

Ofsted did do a quiet reverse ferret but so much damage had by then been done

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/18/ofsted-cites-lack-gender-identity-lessons-factor-primary-school/

As an ex-teacher I completely agree that schools can’t be experts on door gaps, like I appear to be after a few years of research.

But now we’ve got the situation where the DfE are using 1974 legislation to justify their 2023 design when you have at least a dozen pupils in every secondary school with invisible disabilities with no toilets safe for them. Then there’s the stories of pupils dying in new enclosed cubicles and cpr being administered too late to help. And records of sexual assaults. Obviously I cannot state that design was the only factor.

Proper risk assessments and safeguarding should always some first. Not privacy at all costs. The DfE told me they do not hold any records of these risk assessments (for making all secondary school toilets private) in their department.

The last few years have been a free for all. You’ve got headteachers boasting about designing new toilet blocks themselves. No one’s thought about the WHY in design.

Agreed.

But like I said in an earlier post

"Governing bodies may have a legal brain within them, most will not."

To say "well, the SSA says something different to you, and I agree with them" isn't good enough.

But "Governor X is a Lawyer and thinks you have misinterpreted the law", might well be? Don't assume that all Governors are amateurs.

School leaders and governors are accountable for understanding and implementing statutory guidance and the law.

I agree @BonfireLady

However, this is just one area of school life.

School leaders are not experts on the law. They cannot be experts on gender law, H+S law, financial law, workplace law etc etc. First and foremost, they're educators. Not lawyers.

Therefore they have to rely on the larger bodies to interpret the law for them, to help them understand and implement statutory guidance and the law.

The OPs school was following guidance from their county council. If your county council is advising you (aka telling you) as a school leader to do X, you need to have a damn good reason to be doing Y. To say "well, the SSA says something different to you, and I agree with them" isn't good enough.

100% agree.

And as I said before there are a sufficiently large number of Headteachers and schools where they DID follow the law where they resisted the gender woo and were the adults, doing proper safeguarding.

So any argument it was all too difficult is clear and obvious bollocks. And school leaders that pick and choose, using advice from politically active organisations rather than KCSIE, Working together and draft guidance from the government is almost certainly going to lose in court.

Both of the HTs and SLT at my DDs schools are doing safeguarding properly and have single sex spaces. There was a brief period of a gender woo addled activist teacher infecting some of the PHSE resources with ridiculous anti-girl stuff from the USA but thankfully - after parent complaints - sanity and science was restored. Students and teachers are of course free to hold gender woo beliefs along with many others, what they can't do is impose it on everyone else. Just as the religious students and teachers can't force all the other students to celebrate their religious festivals but are accommodated in doing so themselves.

I'd suggest anyone who wants to take their school to court over this, find a school (ideally nearby) where the HT and senior teachers have not imposed gender ideology on children. I think demonstrating how far from safeguarding as implemented in other schools certain schools have gone will be helpful in legal challenges. Plus, giving them a template to work towards - because despite TRA statements about how complicated it is, it really, really, isn't.

And whilst I agree with the sentiment of ignoring the unions and the like , these larger bodies are the guides that schools have to go by.

I disagree. The schools can ignore the unions if the unions are providing advice that clearly contradicts existing statutory guidance and the law.

There are some areas where the guidance for schools is still not robust enough, so ambiguity can creep in e.g. sports. Unfortunately there is only non-statutory guidance which talks about "gender affected" sport. So if schools can find a way to justify not following it, there is wiggle room for them to do so (whether they should or not is another matter) and/or if the unions are advising that it's fairer and more inclusive not to segregate by sex, they might decide they agree.

However, on toilets and changing rooms it's clear and it always has been, at the very least since the FWS appeal case in 2022. The latest SC ruling is about GRCs. There was already an SC ruling in 2022 which made it clear that sex meant biological sex if no GRC was involved.

I'm with SSA on this:

https://x.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1915065131827957790?t=0E-B35qpMC0Fux_4WKsagA&s=19

School leaders and governors are accountable for understanding and implementing statutory guidance and the law. In the first response to the OP, the person writing it misrepresented/misunderstood the statutory guidance regarding the difference between LGB and gender questioning children. This obfuscates what should be simple: boys and girls should change in the correct changing room for their sex, regardless of whether they have a gender identity that differs from it or not. The school could choose to go one step further if it so wishes and follow the draft Gender Questioning Children guidance to private an additional, alternative individual facility for any child who does not feel comfortable doing this.