Good Law Project?

[DrudgeJedd]

The GLP are involving themselves in legal case where a 13 yo trans child has been refused a place at a school because they are trans. twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1446453657227104273?t=kZOpOY23DeK3P_AxgT5nFw&s=19 I clicked through to read more as this seems like such an obvious case of transphobic discrimination I was surprised it had got to the stage of legal action.
This passage jumped out, I'm now thinking that the 'vulnerable child' mentioned here is probably a sibling of the trans child.
I'm extremely skeptical of Maugham because of the way he conducts himself on Twitter and think he's seen 'trans child' and jumped into the middle of a very fraught family situation and may cause more problems for both children involved. Obviously if it's the straightforward discrimination he claims it is then the school should definitely be held to account. Also the governor's comments mentioned are just silly, no-one is giving 13 year olds surgery.
Something about this is not passing the sniff test though...

It’s possible that the GLP are doing a good thing here. We don’t know the details of the child GLP are representing nor the vulnerable child already at the school. It sounds like an informal fostering arrangement?

In the linked article GLP say Under law, transgender children cannot access irreversible interventions like surgery.. It’s possible that puberty blockers, which GLP are fighting for are reversible but it’s not proven. Webberley is unshared of giving T to a 12 year old. That is irreversible.

I was looking at Stonewall’s Twitter yesterday and it looked like they -might- be doing something good. They were taking to a football manager whose team had encountered homophobia. There is definitely problems faced by LGB & T people and support is needed.

But maybe not the right to no-gate keeping and T injections at 12.

It may be that this is a straightforward case of transphobic discrimination & GLP are doing the right thing.
Is it usual for a child to be in foster care but have no social worker? Who has PR for this child?
Maugham has tweeted that he won't be naming the safeguarding lead & governor involved "for now" which sounds vaguely threatening tbh. Also it would surely compromise the privacy of the children involved if the school is identified.

this passage jumped out, I'm now thinking that the 'vulnerable child'

It's plausible but so difficult to know. My first thought was that perhaps a pupil with SEN knows the family and could not be relied upon to keep prior knowledge concealed.

Thanks Clare I thought that was definitely the case. Even if the child's usual social worker has left the service I'm sure they'd be allocated another as a priority.
I'm done giving the fox-killer the benefit of the doubt, here he is comparing the vulnerable child to a racist, he's unhinged

Surely also he shouldn't be hinting that this child is bigoted or whatever?

Usual social mores don't apply when you self-identity as a good guy apparently.

I'm done giving the fox-killer the benefit of the doubt, here he is comparing the vulnerable child to a racist, he's unhinged

All analogies break down eventually but there are some that don't pass even the first sniff.

The facts of this sound a bit unusual. The child could be in a private fostering arrangement and not have a social worker. However if the school has places and the child doesn't have a history of permanent exclusions then they do seem on the face of it to be be breach of the school admissions code. The Local Authority should be involved here, and if the child has a place either but the school won't put them on roll then the DfE should be involved with a direction to admit. I've had to do them when schools have refused to admit on other spurious grounds and it's lengthy to do. If the child is Looked After then the LA should have a virtual school who is ensuring the child is admitted

We don’t know.
I would guess because Jolyon is involved that it’s not the ordinary sort of admission process the client wants help with.
I am assuming they wanted something more special, such as maybe promising not to divulge the child’s trans status and to suppress that information from any source, and it sounds that the school couldn’t make that promise because a child already there already knew, and the school couldn’t promise that other vulnerable child would never mention a true thing?
But we don’t know.

I am also working on the assumption that this isn't applying for a single sex school.

I would guess because Jolyon is involved that it’s not the ordinary sort of admission process the client wants help with.

Has "the client" engaged Jolyon/GLP and asked for help?

Surely he shouldn't be discussing a client's case in this way. Just leaving out the names isn't really in the spirit of anonymity/confidentiality.

If it is a single sex school, how is the fox murderer proposing that none of the other children know this kid is female?

At 13 maybe. By 15 or 16? None of them pass as male.

He's a bit vague about what the GLP involvement is. My reading is that the foster carer has contacted him directly & there is an unconnected solicitor doing some pro bono work?

@Councilworker

The facts of this sound a bit unusual. The child could be in a private fostering arrangement and not have a social worker. However if the school has places and the child doesn't have a history of permanent exclusions then they do seem on the face of it to be be breach of the school admissions code. The Local Authority should be involved here, and if the child has a place either but the school won't put them on roll then the DfE should be involved with a direction to admit. I've had to do them when schools have refused to admit on other spurious grounds and it's lengthy to do. If the child is Looked After then the LA should have a virtual school who is ensuring the child is admitted

This is spot on. Admissions is a legal process and yes, other senior staff do get involved over "hard to place" children, especially if schools are over numbers but refusing a place to a child needs careful thinking and a considered legal response. Suspect there's a lot of boundaries being blurred all over the place here.

I don't want to comment on something that has more holes in it then a block of Swiss cheese. However at the heart of it there seems to be a very troubled young teen and I'm not sure The GLP should be using them like this.

I could be wrong (yes I sometimes am) but I picked this up in a completely different way. I thought that due to the nature of keeping a child's transgender status confidential, the school were concerned that it would not be possible to do this because the vulnerable pupil (possibly with special needs???) knows him and would not be able to keep quiet. If this was the case what alternatives does a school have?

@DrudgeJedd

Thanks Clare I thought that was definitely the case. Even if the child's usual social worker has left the service I'm sure they'd be allocated another as a priority. I'm done giving the fox-killer the benefit of the doubt, here he is comparing the vulnerable child to a racist, he's unhinged

Glad to see the UK's peteol shortage is sorted, as our learned friend here has plenty of it to spray around.

Based on the screenshot in the OP are the school not doing what is continually demanded of them by activists which is to keep everything secret and not 'out' anybody?

Seems that they can't win. They refuse the place based on the fact activists have repeatedly said outing people is a safeguard risk. Or they give the place and the child is 'outed' and they will still be accused of creating harm.

Perhaps the GLP want this other vulnerable child removed from the school? That would fit with what usually happens in these sort of scenarios - other people have to be discriminated against to uphold someones identity.

@Whitefire

I don't want to comment on something that has more holes in it then a block of Swiss cheese. However at the heart of it there seems to be a very troubled young teen and I'm not sure The GLP should be using them like this.

This concerns me too. The GLP seems to focus on making their cases high profile, they are not just about the law, they are about trying to manipulate public opinion. I have no problem with GLP taking on this case, I do have an issue with them publicising it in this way - this can only be detrimental to the vulnerable children involved.

I am also certain that GLP is not sharing the full story or context.

Was it only last week that Jolyon got a Twitter pasting for asking people to DM him with accusations about a journalist he didn't agree with? Now this...
The way he throws his weight around is so unprofessional.

@Councilworker

The facts of this sound a bit unusual. The child could be in a private fostering arrangement and not have a social worker. However if the school has places and the child doesn't have a history of permanent exclusions then they do seem on the face of it to be be breach of the school admissions code. The Local Authority should be involved here, and if the child has a place either but the school won't put them on roll then the DfE should be involved with a direction to admit. I've had to do them when schools have refused to admit on other spurious grounds and it's lengthy to do. If the child is Looked After then the LA should have a virtual school who is ensuring the child is admitted

All this.

Unless it's a single sex school this is a simple 'you have places, admit this child.' But the school can't deal with someone without PR I don't think and this all sounds very informal, possibly making this child even more vulnerable.

Now this...

Christ that is awful. Of course it wouldn't be appropriate to name the school or make Twitter allegations against professionals doing their job.

If the school is wrong then, for the reasons PP has said, there is a process to resolve the issue. There is nothing about this which is made better by publicity.

the school can't deal with someone without PR

I suspect this is the real issue. A FC can't just transfer a child schools. That is a very misleading description of the situation if the child isn't actually in FC.