My son has been permanently excluded

[Expelled123]

Name changed because details are extremely outing.

If there are any experts on here, or if anyone could offer any adice I'd be extremely grateful.

Very briefly. My son used a nicotine pouch in school (he's year 10), they are a legal but age restricted smoking cessation product, in the same way that vapes are. Having legal age restricted products are punishable by fixed exclusion, usually a couple of days.

However, the kid told him it was a banned product called Snus, which is basically chewing tobacco in a pouch.

He has been kicked out, not because it was snus, but because he believed it was snus. All evidence clearly shows it was nicotene pouches.

W.T.A.F???? He's been kicked out because he thought something was something else? How is this even legal?

The Governors upheld the exclusion, even though I coherently fought against the decision with plenty of well researched information.

He's currently at a PRU, I need him out ASAP, it's a hell hole.

I need the permanent exclusion overturned so I can get him into our local catchment school, not an easy move currently as the school can refuse him, or it will be a managed move with all the problems that brings.

The next step is an independant review panel.

A bit of background, my son's behaviour has been challenging at times, due to ADHD, nothing major though, all low level, but it's fair to say he can be a pain. I truly believe that this is the real reason behind the exclusion. He presented them with an opportunity and they leapt on it. I have made arguments regarding his SEN, to no avail.

Please help!

He was given a nicotine pouch and was told it was Snus, up until that point he had never heard of Snus. He was told 'this is Snus, it's a nicotine replacement'. It was out of a round tin that had been bought from a shop, so clearly not Snus, as Snus is a banned product.

Vapes etc are not punishable with permanent exclusion. They are a nicotine replacement product, like nicotine pouches (and actual Snus).

Snus is cut tobacco in a tiny pouch, not a categorised drug. Cigarettes are not punishable by permanent exclusion.

He did not know Snus was banned as he'd never heard of it. He belived it to be a legal nicotine replacement product.

He has been permanently excluded for getting the name wrong.

If he had called it a nicotine pouch he would be excluded for 2-3 days.

To be clear it's an NRT or cessation product.

Designed to stop people smoking, Nicotine is absorbed into the blood stream by placing the pouch under your top lip for 30 mins.

It is in the same camp as patches, but marketed as an "impulse" purchase alongside chewing gum etc to encourage more people to quit smoking!

Thanks girlabouthome, I agree, totally ridiculous. I sound like I condone him using nicotine replacement products, I really don't, I'm furious with him.

However other nicotine products are not punishable by permanent exclusion, if they were I would have to accept it, but they're not.

Well lesson learnt not to accept drugs he doesn’t know what they are! Could have ended a lot worse for him

The problem with all this is what happens after he's been permanently excluded. He's at a Pupil Referal Unit, it's about the last place you want your child to be, trust me. Some might be ok, but this one has bloody dangerous 'students'. Some are dressed head to toe in really expensive designer gear, and they're telling DS that they can afford it because they make shed loads of cash selling drugs.

Ffs! and people here, who presumably haven't been through the same experience with their own child are saying tough shit.

It's hard to hear. I'm terrified, and completely stuffed by the sound of it. If I pull him out I don't know how I go about negotiating a managed move. I'm not a teacher. All those years of study, all the blood, sweat and tears, all the tuition I paid for, the meetings, the appointments, the struggles to get him to take medication, everything..just pointless, just gone. But that's ok, because he called a nicotine pouch Snus.

Thanks Sirzy, lesson learned. Great.

And it wasn't a 'drug'.

As a deputy headteacher I agree with you that if this was the only reason for the perm ex then it is ridiculous. I completely understand your despair at the placement in a Pru. Many are fantastic but to see your child being placed in one for such a relatively minor issue must be heartbreaking. We do all we can to avoid perm ex as an outcome - only as a last resort if the student is a danger to others.

Thank you SleeplessWB, really appreciate your comment. I'll continue to fight on at the IRP, but in the meantime we'll push for a managed move.

When is your permanent exclusion hearing? Have you had the evidence pack yet?
Make sure you go through it this check really carefully that they have followed both their policy and National exclusion guidelines.
Has he had a good opportunity to put his side of the story over? This must be considered.
I would be willing to bet that the panel won’t know what snus is… educated them in your presentation that you can do as part of the hearing

What?! That's not how the law works! Fraudulent yes, but selling paracetamol as ecstasy is not possession of a banned substance. It is indeed relevant that this is not a controlled, illegal or banned substance. This is why you need to speak to a real lawyer rather than listen to the non-supportive people around here. If you can't afford one, perhaps you know of a friend who's got a friend, or you could contact a charity for people in legal trouble, or even seek advice on a forum focused on legal issues (e.g. suitable subreddit etc) where legally trained people hang out. Heck, consider setting up a crowdfunder online, lots of people out there who'd sympathize and support you to right this gross injustice.

By the way, snus is nicotine pouches, same thing. Snus is not chewing tobacco like they have and use it in the US (disgusting!). Sure, it can be bought "raw" too, where you have to roll it into a little ball between your fingers but that's old school with nobody under 50 doing that any longer. Snus is placed under your upper lip where it stays for a couple of hours. If you have any male Scandinavian friends, I can almost guarantee you that some of them are using snus when you see them without you realising.

@norrland it’s selling a drug you believed to be a banned substance!

Just like he was taking a patch he believed to be banned! For the record I don’t agree with a child being excluded from school for this and have never heard of it.

I would have assumed there would of had to have been many an incident for permanent exclusion, I was only pointing out that’s how the school were looking at it

@Expelled123 OK I see now wherein the problem lies - both you and the school believe that the Swedish word “snus” means something different than “tobacco in nicotine pouches”. It doesn’t and researching and understanding this so you can evidence and convince the review board of the same will be key to reversing this unjust decision.

When you casually read or hear that snus is “banned”, it really means it’s not allowed to be sold in the UK by UK-based retailers (a previous EU decision which the gov’t is likely to soon reverse). However it’s perfectly legal to order and import snus from Swedish or non-EU based (e.g. Norway, Switzerland) retailers. As a matter of fact, if you order from one of the many online retailers out there, you’re likely to be unaware of the product being shipped to you from abroad (irrelevant since not illegal). It’s certainly not a banned/controlled substance (it’s tobacco for heaven’s sake!), banned to possess or banned to consume, just age-controlled like all other nicotine products.

If possession of any other nicotine products (e.g. cigarettes, vapes, nicotine patches) than snus/nicotine pouches would have resulted in a temporary rather than permanent exclusion, then this is what the decision should have been in this case also, end of.

Where did the misconception of “banned” come from in the first place, is this what the school had told you? Someone googled it and read “banned” without properly reading up on what that actually refers to, instead misconstruing it as being a controlled or illegal “drug” (nicotine), before rematurely and permanently excluding a young, impulsive child suffering from ADHD on wrongful grounds?

All of the above being irrelevant to the review board, only being concerned about your son’s “lack of character, disrespect for the law and school rules, and willingness to accept and carry what he thinks is an illegal/banned substance”, regardless of whether snus actually is or isn’t from a legal point of view? Well, as you said yourself: “He was given a nicotine pouch and was told it was Snus, up until that point he had never heard of Snus. He was told 'this is Snus, it's a nicotine replacement'. It was out of a round tin that had been bought from a shop… He belived it to be a legal nicotine replacement product.” Yes, the snus nicotine pouches certainly come in a round tin when you buy them (check pic on Wikipedia). He was told it’s snus, a nicotine replacement, which physically comes as nicotine pouches, which he correctly believed were legal. His only intent was to accept, carry and possibly use snus, a nicotine pouch, which he was correctly informed is a relatively innocent nicotine product (compared to controlled drugs like weed, and even cigarettes and alcohol). His friend who gave it to him would’ve had no reason to incorrectly inform him that snus is illegal, controlled or banned because it isn’t (unless your son had intended to open up a retail shop and resell his single pouch). As such, he had no reason to believe that he was handling a banned product, nevermind committing or intending to commit a crime by possessing an illegal substance. Seems to me that this whole misunderstanding that snus is banned or illegal was erroneously suggested ad hoc by the school, which you (and your son) have accepted at face value too hastily. I suspect T his will have put you at a disadvantage from the outset in dealing with the school because you will not have contested the accuracy and substance of the accusation per se and argued that your son simply did not do or could possibly even have intended to do such a serious thing. Instead, in believing that your son had really been handling an illegal product - perhaps (naturally) feeling defeated already from shame, guilt and failure as a parent, even thinking at the back of your head that you can’t rule this out on the back of his ADHD, and maybe already having had a huge go at him over it - you will have been limited and forced to trying to manage and soften the negative impact of the punishment per se, punishment for a crime you’d been led to believe he’s guilty of when he’s really not.

“…had been bought from a shop, so clearly not Snus, as Snus is a banned product. He did not know Snus was banned as he'd never heard of it. He has been permanently excluded for getting the name wrong. If he had called it a nicotine pouch he would be excluded for 2-3 days.” Get all of this out of your head, it’s incorrect and based on a misunderstanding. Snus = nicotine pouch. He thought they were legal and he’s correct. His punishment should be accordingly, not more not less. I understand you’re super worried and emotionally drained by the whole ordeal, but you need to step up and get this message through on the big day!

The question that needs to be asked here is what the school's behaviour policy says.
If it specifically says SNUS is banned in school then the school can realistically permanently exclude. If it says all tobacco products will lead to an exclusion then that again is up to the school headteacher to decide on the level of exclusion and that could be fixed term or permanent exclusion, depending on what the behaviour policy says. If the behaviour policy does not talk about SNUS or tobacco products then it does not stop the school excluding the pupil but it clearly leaves the decision very open to question.
OP what does the exclusion letter say specifically as the reason for the Pex and what does the behaviour policy of the school say?
If you want to put that on a PM to me, then that is fine

Possession of a banned substance

For clarity, since there seems to be some confusion about the law on this thread, you can only be prosecuted for possession or supply if the substance you possess or supply is actually a controlled drug or psychoactive substance. If it is not, your belief that it is a banned substance is irrelevant. However, if you offer to supply a psychoactive substance you commit an offence regardless of whether you supply anything and, if you do, regardless of whether the substance supplied is actually psychoactive.

The status of Snus is that it is not illegal to possess or consume it, but it is illegal to supply, offer to supply, agree to supply or possess any for supply. This applies not just to retailers. Anyone supplying Snus in the UK is breaking the law.

Having said that, the school is entitled to deal with the OP's son as if he had actually brought Snus into the school regardless of the fact that the substance was not actually Snus. Most schools would. Similarly, if a pupil brought a bag containing a white substance into school believing it was cocaine, the school would be entitled to deal with them as if they had brought cocaine into the school even if the substance was actually powdered milk. The point is that the pupil was willing to break school rules by bringing in a substance they believed was banned from school premises.

As Admission says, the central question is what the school's behaviour policy says.

Thanks admission and prh47bridge, I will have a look at the behaviour policy in the morning and let you know what it says, I've had a look through previously and nothing stood out to me, but I might have missed something.

Permanent exclusion - significant issue which may include illicit substances, offensive weapons, physical aggression, sexual assault.

The head called Snus an illicit substance.

Where can I go from here? I can't give up. DS didn't have Snus.

The governors have upheld the exclusion so your only route forward is an independent review. However, as Admission has already indicated, if you go there arguing that your son shouldn't be excluded because the substance wasn't Snus, that is highly unlikely to succeed. What matters is that he thought it was Snus and therefore was willing to bring an illicit substance onto school premises. You should focus on the ADHD issue. That is far more likely to succeed.

DS had Snus but it's not an illicit substance.

@norrland

DS had Snus but it's not an illicit substance.

It is if the school say it is. The school is entitled to set its own rules on what it classes as an illicit substance, regardless of the law. I would expect them to class alcohol as an illicit substance, for example.

@pumpkinpal

Your anger is misdirected.

Your son has a problem and is a problem.

Focus on that.

How horrible and unsupportive Pumpkinpal. This child is as deserving of support and kindness as any other. The school has a duty of care to him, even more so if he has ADHD. Focus on your own crap attitude.

@MultiStorey

OP, I have only read your replies, and what really strikes me is that you are doing all the thinking here.

Where the hell is your son and his brain in all this. Have you asked him what his plan is to get himself out of this pile of shit he threw himself into and is rolling around in.

It also seems that you are looking for a crack to wedge him back in to school. Even if you get him back in- notwithstanding his 7s and 8s- his total stupidity and gullibility means you’re at risk of repeat behaviour when he isn’t getting the message (at all) that you won’t always be there to clean up the turds he is laying out for you.

My mother used to say “For an intelligent person, you’re really stupid” and the same obviously applies here. You will not be able to permanently protect him from his idiocy, and all the time you spend fire fighting on his behalf whilst he gets to sit back, relax, and enjoy watching you is ultimately time and effort wasted.

What’s his plan, why doesn’t he have one, and how about he starts to grow the fuck up and take a tiny bit of responsibility for behaving like a gob-shite.

Multistorey, you realise you are talking about a 14/15 year old kid with ADHD? Are you usually this sympathetic?

Thanks so much winterrabbit, I appreciate your support

I've taken a few days to focus on Christmas, decorating the tree etc, because I have a younger DS who's excited about Christmas, and it's fair to say that I've not thought about much except the upcoming IRP.

Multistory, I hear what your saying, but I don't know exactly how you think he's going to get himself out of this shitshow. He has massive regrets, he deeply wishes he hadn't accepted the nicotine pouches. He's gutted because he probably won't see his school friends that he used to only see in school. He keeps begging for me to get him out of the PRU.

He wrote his own statement for the Governors' panel and read it out, he answered the questions he was asked by the governors and the DofE. He defended himself. I'm not really sure what else he was supposed to do? He keeps asking the manager of the PRU for a managed move.

He knows he fucked up in a nutshell.

But he can't do the reasearch I've done, to the degree that I've done it. He can't come on Mumsnet and ask questions, although i'll ask him if he feels he can, there's no point in me putting him on to a legal advisor and listening to reams of info because he can't take it in. What do you propose he does?

I gues you will say not to fuck up in the future, not to be so stupid, make sure he learns his lesson. Which he hopefully will and has, but that doesn't help me or him now, in the upcoming IRP meeting.

This kid has ADHD, has struggled since nursery, very bright, but no off button or common sense. I also have ADHD, and my behaviour was far worse than him in terms of risk. Obviously I don't tell him that, most people, including my Mum don't have a clue what I used to get up to (not necessarily illegal, or to do with drugs). I know how his brain works (or doesn't, as the case may be). I was extremely fortunate not to be P Excluded, because I can't imagine how my life would have turned out if I ended up at the PRU.

People with ADHD are extremely vulnerable to negative outside influence, and a host of other riskes including P Exclusion, this is why it's classed as a disability, a protected characteristic, and why they are discriminated against. This is why it's not just a case of him being an idiot. He is definitely an idiot, no question, but an idiot with a malfunctioning brain, look it up. You have to walk a mile really. Anyway, I'm waffling.

So yes, can't really sort the shitshow out for himself, so I'm stepping into the breach, like you would if he was your DS.