Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

How has this man been allowed near children?

53 replies

Pyjamatimenow · 05/02/2026 11:45

Anyone with more legal knowledge / safeguarding knowledge understand how this has been allowed to happen? Local piano, singing and musical theatre teacher has just been given ten months for sending sexual message to a 14 year old and planning to take her to London. He and his wife ran the theatre and business together. Lots of eyewitnesses say he has been in and around children and young people from the time of the arrest until the conviction, continuing to take part in shows etc. I just don’t understand it. The victim impact statement is really sad. I have problems with anxiety, having my own children, I find this so worrying that authorities didn’t make sure he had no contact.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g010z0071o
https://news.lancashire.police.uk/news/2026/january/piano-teacher-jailed-for-sexual-communication-with-a-child/

Chris Higgins stands in front of a harbour and is wearing a bright blue hoodie with green strings and a green logo.

Lancashire theatre school teacher sent explicit texts to child

Chris Higgins offending came to light when the 14-year-old victim's father found messages he had sent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g010z0071o

OP posts:
Slowdownwardtrajectory · 05/02/2026 15:04

Yanbu - i dont know

drspouse · 05/02/2026 15:13

He wasn't caught before, I'm assuming. There's always a first time.

Pyjamatimenow · 05/02/2026 16:31

drspouse · 05/02/2026 15:13

He wasn't caught before, I'm assuming. There's always a first time.

He was caught. He was arrested in Sep of 2024 and only convicted last week. That’s 15 months!

OP posts:
Shedmistress · 05/02/2026 16:35

It is because they dont give a shit.

Perfect28 · 05/02/2026 16:38

It's the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing I suspect.

FreshInks · 05/02/2026 16:38

Were parents not aware he had been arrested? 10 months is shocking. He should be in prison for years.

Pyjamatimenow · 05/02/2026 16:39

The council who own the theatre have issued a statement basically saying all procedures were followed after his arrest but how can that be?

OP posts:
Pyjamatimenow · 05/02/2026 16:45

FreshInks · 05/02/2026 16:38

Were parents not aware he had been arrested? 10 months is shocking. He should be in prison for years.

No parents had no idea. It seems it was kept very hushed up-there’s literally local newspaper reports of shows with his name on the cast list plus lots of photos on social media

OP posts:
Jellybunny56 · 05/02/2026 17:10

Pyjamatimenow · 05/02/2026 16:39

The council who own the theatre have issued a statement basically saying all procedures were followed after his arrest but how can that be?

Because between arrest and conviction he is a free man, our justice system is based on the fundamental concept of innocent until proven guilty. He has now been convicted and found guilty and so yes, now, he should not be working with children but between the day of his arrest and the day of his conviction he was in the eyes of the law a free man essentially.

marcyhermit · 05/02/2026 17:12

Jellybunny56 · 05/02/2026 17:10

Because between arrest and conviction he is a free man, our justice system is based on the fundamental concept of innocent until proven guilty. He has now been convicted and found guilty and so yes, now, he should not be working with children but between the day of his arrest and the day of his conviction he was in the eyes of the law a free man essentially.

It's normal to have bail conditions though - why weren't his conditions that he shouldn't have contact with children?

Pyjamatimenow · 05/02/2026 17:24

@marcyhermit yes surely anyone arrested for sexual offences against a child would have something in their bail conditions to stop them having contact with children.

OP posts:
ginasevern · 05/02/2026 17:26

I don't know anything about bail conditions, but surely his employers (the local council?) should have suspended him from his job.

Misfiteverywhere · 05/02/2026 17:26

Same as how someone arrested and charged with sexual offences against women is still allowed to work with women, even alone with them, until their court date. One of my colleagues- 2year delay in court date

gototogo · 05/02/2026 17:29

all depends on bail conditions and perceived risk of reoffending. His bail conditions could be no private contact, must be supervised by another adult maybe. Remember he was innocent until proven guilty so it should not be public knowledge, I’m guessing (hoping) measures were in place to protect young people without it being obvious to others so if he wasn’t guilty there wouldn’t be a witch-hunt

Jellybunny56 · 05/02/2026 17:29

marcyhermit · 05/02/2026 17:12

It's normal to have bail conditions though - why weren't his conditions that he shouldn't have contact with children?

There are lots of things that go into consideration with bail conditions and if they impact employment, especially given the huge delays in things getting to court now. This happened Sept 2024 and got to court Jan 2026, if he had been allocated bail conditions that made him unable to work and then was cleared as innocent…? They do a risk assessment, put other safeguarding measures in place e.g. never unsupervised with children.

Jellybunny56 · 05/02/2026 17:31

Pyjamatimenow · 05/02/2026 17:24

@marcyhermit yes surely anyone arrested for sexual offences against a child would have something in their bail conditions to stop them having contact with children.

Once found guilty, they do. Before that, with court delays up to 2 years if that would mean they cannot work and then at the end of it all they could be clear and innocent, it’s just not that simple.

StasisMom · 05/02/2026 17:41

Jellybunny56 · 05/02/2026 17:10

Because between arrest and conviction he is a free man, our justice system is based on the fundamental concept of innocent until proven guilty. He has now been convicted and found guilty and so yes, now, he should not be working with children but between the day of his arrest and the day of his conviction he was in the eyes of the law a free man essentially.

Technically yes, but in reality I’m surprised the police didn’t do something to prevent him working with children. If he were a teacher in a school, he’s have been suspended.

ViciousCurrentBun · 05/02/2026 17:48

Because deep down women and children are still very disposable. I know we have come some way but let’s be honest it’s women and children who still suffer the most overall.

How they decide court bail is under The Bail Act 1976, this act was put in place at a time when men could not be charged with raping their own wives.

glassof · 05/02/2026 17:53

A friends child was at the school. She didn't know anything until it hit the papers. Her child is in yr8 and the whole family are outraged and upset.

Edited due to spelling mistake

Kimura · 05/02/2026 18:03

In the UK, teachers accused of offences against pupils are entitled to statutory anonymity until they are charged, so he/the school would not have been required to inform parents/adult students.

As for why he was able to continue to work, it depends on the exact bail conditions that were imposed.

An absolute ban on direct/indirect contact with children is usually in relation to a specific child/children. It's possible that his bail conditions were the more common 'no unsupervised contact', which wouldn't necessarily prevent him from working in a theatre school, or attending productions. It would just mean he wouldn't be able to be alone with children without another appropriate adult in attendance. Bail conditions can also prohibit someone from entering a specific school or all schools, so it's unlikely he received that condition either.

I imagine the vast, vast majority of schools would suspend a teacher of children in these circumstances, but it's not necessarily a legal requirement - they could also consider reassigning them, or amending their duties. I haven't been able to find any details on whether he was actually teaching children or just adults, or what his exact bail conditions prevented him from doing, so it's tough to say. One article noted that he was arrested for breaking them, but doesn't say how. It also says he wasn't charged for the breach, so it's possible that it wasn't considered serious, or there wasn't enough evidence.

I understand that it's his/his wife's school, which has obviously helped them keep a lid on things. Morally reprehensible.

soupyspoon · 05/02/2026 18:05

The bail conditions usually say supervised contact or supervised access to children, Ive never known bail conditions to say no contact at all with children.

Foyerstaff · 05/02/2026 18:10

This should have been covered under the LADO procedures and the bail conditions!

Kimura · 05/02/2026 18:20

soupyspoon · 05/02/2026 18:05

The bail conditions usually say supervised contact or supervised access to children, Ive never known bail conditions to say no contact at all with children.

'Absolute prohibition' from contact with children is quite rare and only granted in relation to a specific child or children where there is a risk of reoffending, witness tampering etc.

If someone was considered to be of such high risk that they should not be allowed any form of contact with any child, bail wouldn't be granted.

Pyjamatimenow · 05/02/2026 18:29

soupyspoon · 05/02/2026 18:05

The bail conditions usually say supervised contact or supervised access to children, Ive never known bail conditions to say no contact at all with children.

The thing is though it seems that the one who would have been supervising him is his wife. Surely it would have been more appropriate to have someone without an emotional connection supervise him?

OP posts:
Kimura · 05/02/2026 18:30

Jellybunny56 · 05/02/2026 17:10

Because between arrest and conviction he is a free man, our justice system is based on the fundamental concept of innocent until proven guilty. He has now been convicted and found guilty and so yes, now, he should not be working with children but between the day of his arrest and the day of his conviction he was in the eyes of the law a free man essentially.

Yes and no...your freedoms can absolutely be restricted prior to conviction.

You can be remanded in custody prior to being convicted, if the risk of releasing you is considered high enough, and bail conditions are by their very nature a restriction of liberty.

A person could be banned from attending or entering any and all schools, play areas, etc as a bail condition, for example.

Swipe left for the next trending thread