To think this case was an appalling waste of public money?

[bloodymincepies]

As well as being hugely distressing for the individual concerned?

here

It's quite long but the upshot of it is, it was alleged he was unfit to be a teacher because he swore at a coach over a decade ago, then a (frankly odd) sounding parent claimed he'd called her names in a meeting.

It must have been hugely stressful for not just him but his whole family, and his name has been dragged through the mud. AIBU to think this is ridiculous?

It is rediculous that now this nightmare is over for the poor man you're bringing it into the light again.

Well, that really wasn't the point of the thread but thank you for your input!

He was found guilty of behaviour which may bring the profession into disrepute, following a legal conviction for disorderly behaviour.
Do you think teachers should not have their professional status reviewed after such a conviction?

Are you the teacher or what?

No, I'm not the teacher, but I genuinely feel that day's discussing this case, using solicitors, is a waste of money.

The conviction for disorderly behaviour happened ten years ago. Since then he obtained headships.

But there were a number of other accusations involving a number of witnesses. What else do you suggest?

Perhaps I misunderstood it but it seemed to me many of the accusations came from the same parent who sounded very fraught and anxious to me.

Whats the point of the justice system deciding punishment if you are punished for the rest of your life by people digging up tiny crap and re punishing you? bonkers..

No I don't think it was a waste of time and money. The caseworkers who prepared this case would only have known about the conviction because it had been brought to their attention by the referring authority (the school or local authority). They do request PNC data from the police to confirm whether a conviction has been given to the person being referred but they don't specifically seek it out unless it has been put forward as an allegation in the referral. The case goes through several layers of consideration within the NCTL to decide whether on balance it is likely to succeed at a panel hearing, and at least 50% of referrals are not taken further because they haven't reached the criteria for barring - and a conviction usually means there is a fair chance of the teacher having fallen foul of the teacher standards.

NCTL don't just hold hearings on a whim or to persecute people. The panel is the equivalent of a jury and is there to recommend to the Secretary of State whether their considered opinion is that a teacher be prohibited. This panel didn't think the case was compelling. The teacher may have suffered distress but it hasn't hindered him getting another headship according to the hearing outcome.

The case was obviously worthwhile because the panel found him guilty - the fact the punishment was not him being banned from teaching is irrelevant.