Police arrest parents who slate school on class WhatsApp

[noblegiraffe]

A primary school sought advice from the police after '“a high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts” that had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors.' and the police response was to send 6 officers to their house to arrest the couple making the posts and put them in a cell all day.

Although the couple sound like an absolute pain in the arse who should pack it in, 6 police officers seems like a teensy bit of overkill, particularly with the amount of crime currently going uninvestigated. But with schools faced with spiralling numbers of vexatious parental complaints, something needs to happen. I think some unions are starting to offer legal advice and template solicitor letters for this situation.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d8c8566b-99b1-45c6-814b-008042d74a3a?shareToken=6deab807d148cf7695ed4d9d3664c51e

erm....it's not quite 'the school got them arrested' , is it? The school quite clearly spoke to the police - the police then made a decision that based on the information they had received, they felt it necessary to arrest the parents concerned and speak with them under caution (presumably). After discussion and consideration of the evidence available to them, the police has concluded there is nothing more to be done.

The school cannot make the police arrest someone. The police is an autonomous body operating within the confines of the Law. They did what they had to do in the circumstances.

I honestly think people have lost sight of what is actually illegal. It is not illegal to be insulting, rude, wrong or inappropriate. There was a lot of truth in JD Vance’s speech in Munich.

State school teachers and administrators are public servants paid for by the tax payers with a lot of responsibility over vulnerable children.

Like any public servants, they have to accept being held accountable. Interested parties should point out concerns about poor appointments or shady procedures.

If all parents kept their heads down snd crossed their fingers, it would not be in the children’s best interests.

How about on your jobs correctly. You wonder why you have zero respect. You are public servants not gods.

Clearly the school’s aim was to have them arrested though, wasn’t it? Why else make the false allegation. Their other aim - to make things so unworkable for the parents and unpleasant and dangerous for their child that the parents were forced to remove her from the school - is also apparent from the fact that the police “recommended” to the parents that they withdraw their child from the school. The police aren’t the usual body to advise on educational placements, so it’s quite obvious where this “suggestion” seems to have come from. All of this behaviour seems to have been driven entirely by that aim, since there is no rational or reasonable explanation of the school’s behaviour to this family, and as several posters have pointed out such behaviour from schools to children with SEND and their families - attempting to drive them out of a school to save money on provision - is sadly not unusual. A very similar pattern of behaviour (minus the police involvement) has been recounted by several posters here with a child with SEND, and is evident in multiple tribunal cases about such disgusting and illegal behaviour from schools which follows this same pattern: unwarranted “communication plans”, demonising parents to paint them as unreasonable for advocating for their children’s legal rights, invasion of privacy and attempting to control private communications, often trying to get parents prosecuted if the school refusing provision for the child’s SEND has made the child unable to attend safely, or making malicious reports to social services. The only difference here is that this school, unwisely, went to the extreme of escalating the bullying to the level of making false allegations to the police.

I just knew that SEND would be involved, the school obviously failed the child, it led to the parents asking for support & why the school wasn't providing it. Cue fall out.
Similar thing happened to us with one of our DC's absolute nightmare which definitely would not have occured if said DC hadn't had SEND.
The fact is that while schools have to meet needs of SEND pupils they simply can't do it. Leads to massive tension.

I'm sure now I'd have definitely been banned from the school just for sending emails, the school had it's hands tied at the time as it wasn't the done thing. They instead took it out on my DC & made it untenable for them to attend. It was equally appalling. And I think ultimately long term damaging for DC.
But head teacher was later binned off having been caught drinking at school. And drink driving.

I think in this case the school are trying to shut the parents up, it's probably that there's an ongoing complaint against the school going on. Massively backfired & caused a media storm.

My taking from having this experience is that due to the schools having budgets, reputations & higher ups to answer to they get on the defensive instead of admitting when they've got it wrong. They just won't do it. What really needs to happen is open conversations, supported by advocacy services, not banning people or trying to shut them down. How ridiculous, and embarrassing for the school to be acting like school bullies.

I have no idea about the particulars of this but 6 officers could easily be explained.

If arresting, it’s mandatory that two officers transport to custody. If two arrests, that’s four officers. That leaves just two to search the house.

A double crew may also only count as one officer if it is a training crewing (I.e. new officer worh a more experienced tutor) and training officers are often sent to jobs where searches are required as they have to demonstrate competence at conducting them before they can be signed off as suitable for independent working.

Also, the law quite rightly works in favour of the accused with the innocent til proven guilty concept. That means that if someone denies doing something the police have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they did. The defendant doesnt have to prove anything. A victim having received messages does not prove the defendant sent them - someone else could have. Or they could have been edited by the victim to paint themselves in a better light. That’s why the police need the devices on which the messages were sent as well as received.

I'd do a bit more research if I were you.
This is about WhatsApp messages that were never there. It's not drug related or MI5.

I've got second hand embarrassment for these officers who were obviously led on a merry dance by school staff. Heads will likely roll within the school staff & quite right too. Total abuse of power.

The school also asked the police to threaten a local Counsillor, in an attempt to stop her from holding the school to account and doing her job as an elected representative of the body responsible for educational provision and the management of schools in the area, because they didn’t like that the parents had contacted her (as the appropriate legal representative with oversight responsibility) and she had contacted the Board of Governors about their behaviour, as is completely appropriate for her role. The police threatened that she would be a “suspect” of malicious communication as well for the “crime” of contacting the school in her professional role, entirely appropriately.

The police obviously did not handle this appropriately and are also guilty of misconduct. The Police and Crime Commissioner appears to be investigating this. They should never be intervening in the democratic work and responsibilities of elected representatives and trying to prevent them from doing their jobs, and they should have reviewed the emails to determine if there had been a crime committed and were grounds for arrest before making arrests, therefore avoiding this embarrassing situation where they have made false arrests with no grounds to do so, apparently without even knowing the legal definition of the crime for which they had just made these arrests and having to google it in front of the arrested parents!

However, this does not change the fact that the school’s behaviour throughout was outrageous, unjustified, and completely disproportionate. Their gaslighting of these parents is appalling given that in fact they are the party that has broken several laws and they were the ones engaging in harassment.

The question everybody should be asking is “what are the consequences now for these school staff?”. Where is the investigation by OFSTED into their behaviour? In any other sector one would expect the regulator ot have issued a public statement by now confirming it will investigate immediately and impose penalities as appropriate when the investigation concludes. It could not be clearer that the Head Teacher and all members of SLT involved should be removed from post, have their professional qualifications removed (given the breaches of their professional and ethical codes of conduct set by the TRA, and breaches of multiple laws and statutes) and barred from any further roles in the sector.

As I keep reiterating, if the TRA and OFSTED do not take effective and immediate action on this (they won’t) then it is yet more evidence that OFSTED urgently needs replacing with an effective regulator that has the power to do the job properly and stamp out illegal behaviour in the education sector rather than leave it up to parents to fight individually for their children’s legal rights to be upheld in the face of endemic law breaking like this across the country.

Nah, it's per child and specifically about that child every single time.

Same with epilepsy, undergoing treatment for cancer, scoliosis, haemophilia, anaphylaxis, etc, etc, etc. Kids with asthma get an individualised care plan document as well (which is handy when the parent says 'oh, she needs to take her brown one if she has an attack, we're trying to not let her get too dependent upon the blue so she doesnt bring it to school', etc. But the 'we didn't like the idea of her taking an Epipen to school because you might use it on somebody else, don't you keep Piriton spare in case anybody has peanuts?' was probably the most recent batshittery from 'expert parents').

Precisely because every child is different.

Even if the school has received training from HCPs and there is a IHCP in place, there can still be a need for day to day communication. For example, X had 2 seizures overnight so may be tired today or X’s medication dosage has increased and she is experiencing some side effects or X didn’t sleep well (which in some people can increase the likelihood of a seizure) or X is feeling a bit unwell (but well enough to attend) so may be more likely to have a seizure or can you tell me if anything particular happened yesterday afternoon because when X came home she went on to have a seizure(s).

For goodness sake. Of course doctors need to provide medical advice. However, parents see the child day to day. They often know triggers and early warning signs better than doctors. It’s completely “batshit” - as you put it - to think you can exclude parents from any discussion about the medical treatment of their child. You need their consent for any treatments and this is their child. You can’t expect them - given the type of shitshow described in this article - to blindly trust that school have got appropriate procedures in place. Do you genuinely not understand why parents of a child with a potentially fatal health condition would need to speak to their class teacher about it in person to be reassured that the teacher had been appropriately briefed on what to do, and why regular communication would be required to update on any raised health risks, medical incidents at school or at home? You cannot really be this obtuse. Any reasonable parent would absolutely insist on this as it is basic safeguarding of their child. No reasonable school staff would attempt to obstruct it and, indeed, by doing so they are in breach of the Children and Families Act 2014 and the statutory SEND Code of Practice. Healthcare plans must be reviewed formally at least termly with school staff and the parents present. The school refused to even do that. Why are you defending this illegal behaviour?

Yeah completely batshit for a parent to be an expert on their own child.

Insufficient evidence for a prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and in the public interest and effective use of judicial resources is not none. Another parent shared the messages so someone else thought there was a concern.

The school objected to them telling a single teacher. They need only to tell the school as they are experienced at cascading specific medical information.

@Hameth the point is that the parents clearly hadn’t passed the threshold for prosecution under either harassment or malicious communication laws. This should have been obvious from the outset.

You expect these parents to be able to take it on faith that this school will pass on medical information to the appropriate staff, accurately and in a timely manner when they had deliberately obstructed and prevented even communication that is required by law?

The parents were told to email one specific email address. How often is that inbox monitored? How long does it take the school to pick up these messages - which could be urgent - and forward them to the class teacher who needs the information? I’ve heard of these illegal communication plans being implemented previously as a way to try to silence parents of a child with SEND who are - rightly - advocating on the child’s behalf for proper provision and safeguarding. In one particularly shocking case the school stated they would review the emails from the parents and reply once per week. Absolutely negligent, given that the many of the emails contained urgent medical information without which the school could not properly safeguard the child during school hours.

As a PP pointed out, with a potentially fatal condition like this daily updates from parents to school and vice versa may be necessary for proper safeguarding and may be time-critical; noting any health incidents/ seizures that have occurred/ potential triggers/ raised risks if medication dosages have been changed or the child is particularly tired/ discussion about activities or events at school that might increase risks. The school hasn’t even got appropriate procedures in place to ensure basic legal compliance and you expect these parents to have entrusted the care of their extremely vulnerable daughter to a class teacher who has never met them or discussed their child’s medical needs with them in person at all, when if they get it wrong the child may end up dead?

Some of the comments on this thread are deranged and extremely worrying given it appears that many of those attempting to defend the illegal and negligent behaviour of the school appear to be people who work in schools themselves.

Many people are arrested but not charged. That doesnt mean there was no evidence. We know there was insufficient evidence/in the public interest for a charge. What we don't know without further clarification on the content is whether it was a justified arrest or a quiet word was appropriate. I feel there was likely to be something intemperate that another parent shared and on the background of being barred (I mean, that's pretty extreme that had happened so there was some element of being vexatious before) it has escalated. I don't think at this stage an arrest was the first line response but I do think the police should have had a quiet word. The original dispute was about a senior appointment not the child.

Read the thread. The only evidence that could possibly have existed to demonstrate that there was a crime was evidence that the police had in their possession already, prior to the arrests. They had reviewed it and found no evidence of a crime yet arrested the parents anyway, with no evidence that a crime had taken place and no legal grounds for arrest. The police officers involved didn’t even know the legal definition of the crime and had to google it in front of the parents so how could they possibly have reached a conclusion that they had valid grounds for arrest?

What is important is that the police officers involved in this misconduct are properly disciplined and procedures put in place country-wide to ensure this never happens again.

Likewise, that the school staff involved are suspended pending investigation of their illegal behaviour and professional misconduct and subsequently have their professional qualifications removed, and heavy fines levied on the school and Local Authority involved to provide a clear message and deterrent to other schools and Local Authorities that such misconduct and illegal behaviour is unacceptable and won’t be tolerated. Since OFSTED and the TRA seem incapable of doing this key aspect of their roles as the relevant regulator and professional body they should be replaced with competent ones who can and will stamp out such behaviour with harsh penalties and zero tolerance.

A direct reporting channel to the regulator should be opened specifically for parents to submit evidence of such misconduct or illegal policies and behaviour by school staff and the regulator needs to investigate each individual case and take appropriate action, rather than leaving it to parents to enforce the law.

Nah, this is wrong and a breach if safeguarding processes. You do not tell individuals because the knowledge needs to be known by the institution. Individuals can be absent, or doing something else. A parent will be given/can ask for the care plan and communication protocol for reassurance. There will be many children protected by the school, whether allergies or long term conditions, or safeguarded, or in care etc so cascading information appropriately is in the lifeblood of the school. If the parents tell teacher A but what if its a music/pe lesson or in the playground? So you see the institution needs all of the information all of the time. That is core principles and your examples of bad practice may be true but isn't evidenced in this case as the school seems to be following safeguarding best practice.

A decision to charge is not the same as a decision to arrest. The parents have provided a statement to the police which has meant no charges. There is a procedure to authorise address and you may be right that there was nothing and it was a breach of process. But just because there was no charge does not mean the arrest was wrong. I would agree with you if you were calling for inquiry/clarification on the decision to arrest but it is wrong to say no charge means no evidence. We just don't know.

The parent who did that, if they happen to also be a school employee, Governor of even a member of the PTA is potentially in breach of GDPR due to misusing personal data for the purposes of an organisation that they are associated with, without express written consent from the owner of that personal data for a change of use. The fine that can be levied for such breaches is potentially unlimited and individuals as well as the organisation (school) can be prosecuted. I’d strongly suggest to the parents in question that they issue an SAR to the school to find out exactly what happened regarding this spying on their private conversations, and obtain transcripts of all other written communications and minutets of any meetings that have taken place in which they or their child have been mentioned.

Yes, it does, in this case, because all possible evidence that could exist was in the possession of the police already prior to them making the arrest, and clearly demonstrated that no offence had been committed, therefore it was a wrongful arrest.

Nobody said the school as an institution doesn’t require this information on file and all staff working with the child in question should be briefed. However, as I and others have explained to you repeatedly that doesn’t negate the necessity for the child’s parents to have direct contact with those caring for the child on a day to day basis (i.e. the child’s class teacher) to ensure that the child is properly safeguarded and to relay directly time-critical information. The Children and Families Act requires open and transparent communication between the school and the child’s family, as does the statutory SEND Code of Practice. It is required that parents are not shut out of the process of ensuring that the disabled child’s needs are met and recognised in law that regular, open and transparent communication will be necessary, which this school seems to have done everything possible to circumvent and obstruct. Many EHCPs actually specify daily contact between the child’s class teacher (obviously the substitute doing the role that day if they are absent) and the parents.

These posts are totally delusional. We’re talking about a potentially fatal health condition and basic safeguarding which any responsible parent would insist on and your response is “nah”. Would you leave a child with a potentially fatal health condition in the care of someone you’d never even spoken to, for 30 hours per week??

No wonder there is so much tension between parents and schools if this is the dismissive and irresponsible attitude of staff.

I am replying to you not because I can change your mind but so that other people know it is wrong. There is no expectation of privacy within a what's app group. If they are in the group there is implied consent that all participants can receive information regardless of their role. Individuals are not covered by GDPR and even if they have a role as agents of the school [PTA is voluntary association so not included] that does not mean they are permanently agents of the school. As Individuals they can pass it on to the school if they are concerned. The school has then acquired data which is relevant and if staff safety is a genuine issue they may lawfully process that information. Sharing to a staff newsletter would not be lawful, passing it on to an appropriate authority (police) would be. It's odd that you as an advocate of the right to free speech and open communication to school now feel there is a right to privacy. Would the parents not want the school to know what they wrote?