To not care she has won just glad she's not working with children

[Catvsworld]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593287/Primary-school-teacher-sacked-standing-paedophile-headmaster-husband-wins-compensation-unfair-dismissal.html

Tbh I am just glad she is no longer working with children

Standing by her awful husband shows she cannot keep children safe let alone her won daughter and in a school were issues of cp may come up its important the head is shit hot on it not sympathetic to the abuser who may even be a teacher

she could have stayed married but not lived with him or had any contact plenty of older generation who won't divorce but have separated

She's not even the head teacher so actually, I'd have no problem with her staying.

I work in employment law and agree with this ruling. Just because her husband is a pedophile doesn't mean she is, so it shouldn't have a bearing on whether she should be employed in that role or not.

She hasn't closed ranks or condoned what he did. She just believes that he is contrite and won't do it again.

The op's whole 'head teachers being in charge of cp' collapsed with that blinder of an incorrect comment soapbox.

But part of her job is to seek out help for those children in her classes who are being sexually abused. Would the school be liable, in knowing that one of their teachers was in a relationship with a paedophile, if there were any accusation that that teacher minimised a disclosure from one of those children?

Not to say that would be the case for this individual teacher, but how would the legalities fall around that in terms of duty of care?

She should never of been sacked, why should she be punished for her husbands crimes. She never condoned what her husband done but said she'd stand by him because she believed in her wedding vows.

The governing body massively overstepped the mark there.

It's not down to them, to say whether she should separate from her husband or not.

You also have to bear in mind that what a person actually gets convicted with is not all that they have done. The courts can only put through the cast iron stuff and a child protection officer once told me that there is mountains more child abuse that they have done before they get caught.

Its extremely rare anyone gets caught on there first attempt at doing this kid of thing. I would not want her teaching my child as to me it very much looks like she is condoning her husbands behaviour by standing by him. To me this that her sense of right and wrong are much off balance.

So although unfair that she was sacked I do not think she should work with children when she is going home to a convicted paedophile every evening and thinking that, that is acceptable.

She hasn't closed ranks or condoned what he did. She just believes that he is contrite and won't do it again.

Which shows poor judgement. What if a fellow teacher abuses a child and she doesn't do anything about it because she thinks he won't do it again?

What if she witnesses sexual abuse of younger children by older children and decides that it's enough to just tell them not to do it again?

It's nice she's getting a compensation, I appreciate that it will be even harder to get away from her husband without money if/when she changes her mind about his actions ... but I wouldn't want her to teach children.

I'd suggest that given the evidence of how seriously she takes her religious beliefs, there would be no chance of her lying or disregarding claims a pupil might make to her. Her religion is obviously a large part of her character.

She hasn't closed ranks or condoned what he did. She just believes that he is contrite and won't do it again

So what if he is contrite and to be honest that would worry me even more because she actually believes he committed these awful crimes and is still willing to play happy families with him. She is tacitly condoning his behaviour for continuing a 'normal' marriage under the shadow of such heinous crimes.

Some of you here are honestly condoning the school condemning a woman for the sins/crimes of her husband. Not on really.

What if it was her child? Would you expect her to kick him to the kerb?

Paul as religious as all those people who committed their lives to God as priests and abused child after child. No one is so religious that they are incapable of cognitive dissonance which this woman has already shown she is clearly capable of.

Like hell would I allow someone who stands by her husband to look after my child.

Two separate things here really.

One - her belief that someone who commits this sort of crime will simply repent and will never be tempted to do it before. Coupled with the fact that she sees her marriage vows as sacrosanct mean she could leave herself, in the future, in a difficult position where her judgement could let her down and lead her to allowing a child to be harmed. Whether this is true or not, that would always be a concern and would eventually lead to a lack of trust in her ability and judgement leaving her unable to do the job anyway. She should have resigned.

Two - the governors had no right to sack her. She has broken no laws and there is no evidence that she definitely will - although there is the risk above. Just because someone wont take the right decision for themselves doesn't mean you can just breach the law and make if for them.

On balance, she was unfairly dismissed.

vestal there is no indication she wouldn't report abuse, the same as for any other teacher. She hasn't said anything to suggest what he did 'wasn't that bad' or 'wasn't abuse' . She condemned his actions she just believes in forgiveness.

Which is exactly what our whole system of justice is based on. Very few people end up in prison for life. Most serve their time and are released. We may put restrictions on some ex-offenders but mostly we expect them to get on with it.

Paul I am condemning her own behaviour in standing by her man.

Let's take you approach and see how far would you would be willing to defend her. What would you say if she stayed with him if she had young children herself, young children who social services would take away given the nature of her husband's crime. She has committed no crime, would it still be OK to stand by her husband as she vowed to do.

I'm glad she's not working with children any more. I'd have zero confidence in sending my children to be taught by her. I think she shows shockingly poor judgement and is putting her own religious belief above the welfare of children, including the children he abused.

I actually think she put the governing body in an impossible position. I imagine they had enormous pressure from parents and a duty to ensure that parents have confidence in teaching staff employed by the school.

Religious or not, standing by such a despicable human being is despicable in itself.
I also would not allow her to teach my children.

Brain we are not talking about them, we're talking about this woman who has an exemplary record in her career and no evidence of her doing anything wrong. So I tend to judge people by what we know, not by what we baselessly assume.

It's not the States role to decide who teachers should and should not love.

What baseless assumption do you mean Paul? She has done wrong in my eyes, not committed a crime, but done wrong. Her 'exemplary' record is flawed by her poor judgement.

Really p0ppers? You've checked out the criminal records of all your children's teachers' spouses? And those of their TA's? Dinner ladies? Supply teachers?

I wouldn't want her teaching my children either.

The law can be argued about till hell freezes over - but what do you do about the parents feelings? Supposing the majority of parents refused to have her teach their children in future?

Baseless assumptions about how she would behave if a child came to her with a potential cp issue. There is absolutely no evidence that she would ignore it but people are willing to say she might because she stayed married to her husband.

I'm glad the ruling went in her favour, what happened to her was wrong and thankfully the justice system agrees.