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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

157 replies

Catvsworld · 17/05/2016 11:35

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

OP posts:
madcapped · 17/05/2016 17:22

But I thought teachers aren't allowed to live with people or employ people in their homes that have been convicted of certain offences? I'm starting a teacher training course in the autumn and I had to fill out a form stating that no one in my home had any serious convictions. I can't remember the exact wording.

I agree that if she stands by her man she needs to stop teaching.

Ginkypig · 17/05/2016 17:23

She's done nothing wrong even if I don't for one second "get" how could stay with such a man but her link to the school and him opens a link between him and the children even when she is completely removed from the link and has no knowledge of any possible contact!

All it would take is for him to approach a child in the correct school uniform saying somthing like do you know miss I'm her husband, come on il walk you..... The child may very well trust this man because he is married to a nice teacher at his/her school.

That would be it a child's life ruined, a wife's trust devestated (again)

I know it seems unreal but it really can be that easy and all because of a tenuous link between a wife and children.

Ginkypig · 17/05/2016 17:26

I feel I should add as I didn't say in my last post

I do feel sorry for this woman even if I don't understand, but the risk is too great because the outcome for the child is unrecoverable from

TheSteveMilliband · 17/05/2016 17:30

I have come across families through work where a fathers abuse of children (sometimes his own) has been revealed later in life and what is often striking is the familiy / partners ability to rationalise / minimise / deny the behaviour. I would definitely have questions over how this head teachers stance affects her ability to recognise and address abuse in others, as well as her ability to recognise signs in her own husband hence protect children from him. I agree with posters who say that she is not guilty of a crime but that her role as a head teacher and the responsibility for child protection that entails is incompatible with continuing in that role.

acasualobserver · 17/05/2016 17:30

All it would take is for him to approach a child in the correct school uniform saying somthing like do you know miss I'm her husband, come on il walk you.....

He wouldn't need to be married to a member of that school's staff in order to abduct a child in this way. He would just need to know one teacher's name.

acasualobserver · 17/05/2016 17:32

She isn't a head teacher, Steve.

TheSteveMilliband · 17/05/2016 17:36

Don't think the fact she is or isn't a head teacher is all that relevant casual..she is still involved in child protection.

acasualobserver · 17/05/2016 17:55

It wasn't relevant but you cited it twice in support of your position?

ErNope · 17/05/2016 18:02

Unfortunately i've no kids yet, but hell will freeze over before I allow anyone who condones paedophilia(I'll explain my stance on that in a mo) to come into contact with any child of mine.
I feel that she condones paedophilia as by staying with him, she is having sex with, going on dates with and doing all manner of the things married couples do, With a paedophile. This is a really bad example but if I had a problem with say, librarians, or gingers (I really don't but I'm trying very hard to come up with a comparison) I most definitely wouldn't be shagging, living with, going out with or doing anything as above, with one.
I'm really sorry about the badly made point but I hope you can understand what I mean.
Read to page 3 only, someone has probably put it more eloquently than I can by now.

IoraRua · 17/05/2016 18:10

It's a very difficult situation. On one hand, her losing her job because of what her family did is massively out of line. If she had a child who turned out to be a paedophile would she have to disown them?

On the other hand, it does put the school into a difficult position re children disclosing to her, and risk of minimising.

Brainnotbrawn · 17/05/2016 18:12

According to the judgement cited governors failed to adequately consider alternatives to sacking her and she had been placed at 'a particular disadvantage' because of her religious convictions

There is no recommendation within the judgement to reinstate the teacher so I do think this is a practical judgement whereby the judge is considering that the board of governors may have needed to act under the given circumstances but it overreached.

amarmai · 17/05/2016 18:13

teachers and others who are entrusted with /working with/caring for other people's dcc shd be held to higher standards IMO.

JAPABimtheonewhoknocks · 17/05/2016 18:17

his is a really bad example but if I had a problem with say, librarians, or gingers (I really don't but I'm trying very hard to come up with a comparison) I most definitely wouldn't be shagging, living with, going out with or doing anything as above, with one.

What if that ginger person admitted that they were wrong, dyed their hair another colour, and you made clear that you would only be with them for as long as they showed unequivocal repentance? Would you still be condoning ginger people?

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 19:52

Oh acasual, I'm not presenting opinion as fact. As Charliebear say, "Risk is always theoretical", and an impartial assessment of risk isn't an "opinion".

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 19:56

madcapped I thought that too! I thought anyone who's brought them into contact with children had to make this disclosure and may not be able to continue in their role if a conflict was discovered.

I mentioned up thread how my family member's wife being worried she would lose her job as a dinner lady if her husband accepted a caution for "abusing"* their teenaged daughter. This really is quite usual.

*note, he 100% did not abuse her, she told me herself she deemed it unacceptable for him to take her phone away so called the police!!

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 19:59

Typo: ...anyone who's JOB brought them...

acasualobserver · 17/05/2016 20:11

Oh, eatsleephockeyrepeat, yes you are.

Also, feel free to ignore all the other points I've made. Hang on, silly me, you have.

insancerre · 17/05/2016 20:14

As a nursery manager I am well aware of disqualification by association
Every month my staff have to declare if they live with anyone convicted of crimesinvolving children and vulnerable people
Its part out their contract an in their condition of employment that they have to declare it
I don't see why it should be any different for teachers
The potential is there for them to be groomed just the same
www.laurahenryconsultancy.com/2015/03/03/disqualification-by-association/

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 20:26

You'll have to recap for me acasual because I don't see anything that warrants a response? Your only comment to me was that I was presenting opinion as fact?

A more detailed response to this is you like: this assessment of risk is not my opinion. I am stating the fact that that assessment has been made and the risk has been deemed too great. By people who would know.

To expand upon that, decisions for the wellbeing and good of society are made by suitable educated people who are employed to use their skills in the assessment of a situation, and give their professional opinion as to how to proceed.

Surveyor tells you your house is 99% likely to fall down; well it hasn't fallen down yet, this is only your opinion. The house has done nothing wrong - it deserves a chance.

Doctor tells you 85% people with your condition die without treatment. But this is only their opinion and shouldn't influence your decision.

The relevant authorities, in possession of all the facts - more than we have to hand - tells you a person with an emotional and legal commitment to a paedophile poses a significantly increased risk to children... and what?

I think you mentioned to someone else about us maybe stopping men become teachers because they're more likely to commit sexual offences? Now imagine being a man increases your risk to a child by 5%; this may be deemed by professionals an acceptable risk. Imagine being the spouse of a paedophile increases the risk posed by 23%. This may not be deemed an acceptable risk. See?

ChihuahuaChick · 17/05/2016 20:45

I hope she has a miserable fucking life with him. Were she my sister she would be DEAD to me, were he my brother he would be fucking DEAD to me. Yes he did it, not her. So fucking what? Other wives have managed to walk away, not all of them with a job to help them support themselves.

It doesn't affect her ability to teach? No, but it affects her ability to be human being worth pissing on if they catch fire. How long before forgiving him and seeing the good in him turns into her helping him gain the trust of a child because there's a nice lady too, not just a man?

acasualobserver · 17/05/2016 20:47

Surveyor tells you your house is 99% likely to fall down; well it hasn't fallen down yet, this is only your opinion. The house has done nothing wrong - it deserves a chance.

I'm sorry, this is nonsensical.

Imagine being the spouse of a paedophile increases the risk posed by 23%. This may not be deemed an acceptable risk.

Is this another 'fact'? If it isn't then it is pointless to introduce it. See?

Also, it's worth noting that "the relevant authorities" have found this woman was unfairly dismissed.

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 20:53

Also, it's worth noting that "the relevant authorities" have found this woman was unfairly dismissed

Yes, yes, and she has been compensated for this infraction, but they didn't award her her job back did they?

Anyway, I think I've been clear enough. I'm out.

Brainnotbrawn · 17/05/2016 20:58

Acasual the relevant authorities considered that the punishment employed was unlawful but they did suggest that other measures could have been necessary. It is also not clear that had the governors followed a due process whereby the had suggested less onerous risk management solutions to the teacher and had she been unwilling to engage with them whether that would have constituted
"adequately considering [sic] alternatives" and then would firing her have become lawful in the given circumstances.

The ruling was not absolutely in favour of the teacher in the way it has been quoted in the DM at the very least.

acasualobserver · 17/05/2016 21:05

I'm out

Fair enough. Cheerio.

acasualobserver · 17/05/2016 21:14

It is also not clear that had the governors followed a due process whereby the had suggested less onerous risk management solutions to the teacher and had she been unwilling to engage with them...

They didn't and she didn't have the opportunity to react to something that didn't happen. Pointless speculation piled on pointless speculation.