Shocking article about teacher being sacked for questioning transing of an 8 year old

[finallypeaked]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/11/teacher-sacked-trans-pronouns-nottinghamshire/?utmsource=facebook&utmmmedium=newstab&fbbnews_token=XZqepWvIckJyAnptmqkqdQ%3D%3D.7YX9%2Ba8k1KGoVwUQSDEMXNgp9NmwJAhY9t2fzV%2FArheTIj5DIIRdJxBvwbzdzjHTE3WrKfUptID7J15%2BxwkLDhx4wCkDtPJhE5Y2rH8roFVhamXRxOUdSHdCL5yOI%2Fb9ws5b4SoU5UXYhugwy0a1Jn9g%2FOi%2FELEnRgB7mVZlUvE2T9wXa489i2StDzjnljIhjTDurQf22ptgDRk%2BGk7X1m%2BjuuEkTqYGVNkF%2BVcq91NoEwhGzMhAa%2BwY3uSwlz1dI%2BHGprCp0Q%2Bqmv56nawUHcCrUd%2FQs7H4PaZUi6KI0FMSqpbWHH85AwTxiwLwa2bU

I find this terrifying. And incredibly sad for the poor teacher and the child they were trying to protect.

Can you imagine how legal representation would work if clients weren't able to tell their solicitors anything related to their case.

The difference would be if they were duty-bound to keep certain information confidential -for example about a child, patient or so on.

This seems to be at the heart of the issue and so I wonder what lawyers here think?

This this the same teacher who pursued a judicial review against the school and the local authority about ignoring safeguarding concerns, but the judge refused permission for jr? The details of the case sounds very similar.

christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/judge-refuses-permission-for-judicial-review-in-school-transgender-safeguarding-case/

I think it is the same case yes.

I think this part of the information on that website is pertinent:

"...no alternative but to get legal advice and pursue legal action.

For accessing and sharing information about Child X as part of receiving legal advice and raising serious safeguarding concerns, Hannah was investigated and brought before a governors disciplinary panel.

They concluded that she would be sacked for gross misconduct..."

Given she had previously been told to have no or limited interaction with this child, it sounds like the gross misconduct happened at the point she accessed the school system specifically to get information on the child. To me it sounds like she had sadly become quite obsessed with this child and it was starting to stray into some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking.

Lockheart - "it sounds like the gross misconduct happened at the point she accessed the school system specifically to get information on the child. To me it sounds like she had sadly become quite obsessed with this child and it was starting to stray into some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking."

What it actually says is: "For accessing and sharing information about Child X as part of receiving legal advice and raising serious safeguarding concerns"

Perfectly legitimate and no reason whatsoever to suggest that "it was starting to stray into some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking".

Get a grip!

https://christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/judge-refuses-permission-for-judicial-review-in-school-transgender-safeguarding-case/

You've just copied the exact section I copied from the website. Our two quotes say exactly the same thing.

The point stands that a teacher who has been told not to be involved with a particular child is quite likely to be in trouble for accessing or trying to access information about that child regardless of the reason why, especially when that teacher already has a suspension under their belt.

She was sacked for gross misconduct for sharing details of this child to her lawyers- not for her beliefs.

She broke the rules.

Try reading the article instead of clutching your pearls, please.

She was sacked for gross misconduct for sharing details of this child to her lawyers- not for her beliefs.

Except sharing details with her legal team is allowed under legal privilege.

TribunalTweets had permission to tweet the jr court sessions at the time. There's a bit more information there. I'm not clear but I think it's implied that the child has SEN. The child was bullied in their previous school. Stonewall as an organisation was not involved directly but the Local Authority is Stonewalled.

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/primary-teacher-vs-local-authority

She followed the rules.

The rules for safeguarding a vulnerable child.

And for those who say she was wrong to access information on a child after being told to avoid contact with that child, she already had that information. That information was the reason she raised concerns, before she was told to avoid the child. She was told to avoid the child precisely because she raised concerns relevant to the information about the child.

The TribunalTweets - the Counsel for the respondents states that Hannah was breaching GDPR. I don't know the ins and outs of GDPR, but I think this part could play a major part in the upcoming tribunal.

The rules for safeguarding a vulnerable child.

Yes! This.

No she didn't already have it all and she persisted in looking for it after she had been told to stop. If you read the afternoon transcript from Tribunal Tweets (<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140309/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1584893219787378688.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140309/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1584893219787378688.html), the evidence is that the teacher was searching school records for information on this child well after she had already been writing to governors etc, which itself was after she had been told to not get involved with the child according to the timeline from the Christian legal website above.

I have copied the transcript from TT below, bold emphasis is my own (this is from the respondent's - the school's - counsel):

"C accessed the child's personal information in violation of GDPR after she had written to the chair of governors and the chair responded. C obsessively trawled the school records for information to support her case. AM conts - an audit of C's access to school records, accessing and surveilling information relating to Child X. Various dates, post dating the correspondence with the governors. No matters complained of to the school."

It explicitly states in the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools - Keeping Children Safe in Education - that safeguarding overrides GDPR and if someone is raising a safeguarding concern they cannot be prosecuted for GDPR breaches. Otherwise safeguarding could never happen.

"57. DPA and UK GDPR do not prevent the sharing of information for the purposes of keeping children safe and promoting their welfare. If in any doubt about sharing information, staff should speak to the designated safeguarding lead (or a deputy). Fears about sharing information must not be allowed to stand in the way of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children"

One thing that strikes me about KCSIE is that most things say speak to a 'designated safeguarding lead' for any safeguarding concerns- but what if you think the safeguarding lead(s) are not acting in children's best interests? Seems to me from reading it through if you wanted to harm children (or push an ideology) becoming the DSL would be the way to go. You could dismiss concerns brought to you by staff and what could they then do?

Igmum · Yesterday 19:48
Definitely basic safeguarding. I hope the interim Cass Review will help this teacher's case (and I also hope she wins BIG)

It is and I hope this helps her win.

But though she has brought up safeguarding for the child, I worry because she has also brought her “Religious Beliefs” into the case.

I am thinking of the mother who based on her Christian beliefs didn’t want her very young child forced to go on a Pride March by her primary school headteacher. She lost. https://christianconcern.com/news/parents-to-appeal-in-4-year-old-forced-pride-parade-case/

KCSIE mentions (several times as well, not just in point 57) that DPA 2018 / GDPR do not stand in the way of safeguarding, but - and this will be the crucial test I think - only where there is a genuine risk to a child's well-being. Accessing and sharing a child's information without authorisation is of course in itself a safeguarding risk.

It will need to be proved that the child in this case was / is at risk of actual harm from gender ideology so that the teacher was right to access and share that information, and that the teacher was not just accessing and sharing that information to try and fight her suspension / warnings, or to bolster her own personal arguments (potentially also idealogically-driven given the involvement of certain Christian campaign groups) against the child's social transition.

It will need to be proved that the child in this case was / is at risk of actual harm from gender ideology so that the teacher was right to access and share that information, and that the teacher was not just accessing and sharing that information to try and fight her suspension / warnings, or to bolster her own personal arguments(potentially also idealogically-driven given the involvement of certain Christian campaign groups) against the child's social transition.

It is confusing why she needed to divulge the child’s name? Would that ever necessary to bring her case?

Although the EA says religious beliefs are protected, maybe really they are just seen as ideologies.

The protected characteristic “Gender Reassignment” would no doubt not be seen as an ideology.

Nobody wants to protect Christians or Muslims against transgender policies as those are part of being the all encompassing LBGTQ+ which includes being gay.

People of those religions are seen as bigoted fundamentalists if they do not endorse anything LGBTQ. It is not wise to say you are Christian if you want to object.

I'm pretty sure the child's name would need to be divulged at some point purely for practical reasons so the respondents can argue their case, but I think the main issue is the teachers repeated searching of the child's records and what else she may have divulged (which of course we don't know).

Her religious beliefs have the potential to colour the courts judgement and may indeed be the main driver for her own behaviour - we can't really know that either. Is she genuinely concerned for the child's wellbeing or does she just believe children shouldn't be transitioned? It's a subtle but important distinction.

I guess it will come down to whether she can prove her actions were in response to an actual risk (or a sincere belief in risk), or whether the other side can show that her actions were driven by her personal view of gender ideology and it was not in response to risk / a sincere belief of risk.

When did this happen to the teacher?
Before or after the interim Cass report?
Because if after, the school was lacking if they never bothered to read it given they had an eight year old wanting a transgender identity to be affirmed.

Fair enough, Lockheart, I hadn't seen that. And if that timeline is accurate, then it is arguable that she breached safeguarding protocol, which is that the reporter should not carry out any investigation. That is inappropriate.

"No matters complained of to the school." Taking her concerns outside the school, however, is not inappropriate. She had already reported her concerns to the DSL and to the next safeguarding level up, the governors. It is appropriate to take safeguarding concerns outside the school if they are not being dealt with appropriately within the school. Given they had poopooed her concerns in the first place, why would she 'complain' to them again?

Isn't it a bit dodgy to describe raising a safeguarding concern as 'complaining'?

If the Cass report says that social transition in school is not a neutral act, then safeguarding issues should be raised.

I feel like I'm missing something.

The interim Cass report was Feb 2022 and according to the timeline from christianconcern above, the child in this case joined the school in Sept 2021 and the school had implemented their new policy sometime ahead of that date, so well before the Cass report. The teacher was suspended in Sept 2021, returned to work and raised their first formal concern in Oct 2021, and raised another formal concern again in Feb 2022. I'm not sure of the date she was sacked, but the timeline of events straddle the Cass report.

I think they're just describing what happened at the time and confirming the school hadn't had any more issues raised internally from her, I don't think the implication there is that it was dodgy.

*Lockheart+ · Today 18:59
The interim Cass report was Feb 2022 and according to the timeline from christianconcern above, the child in this case joined the school in Sept 2021 and the school had implemented their new policy sometime ahead of that date, so well before the Cass report. The teacher was suspended in Sept 2021, returned to work and raised their first formal concern in Oct 2021, and raised another formal concern again in Feb 2022. I'm not sure of the date she was sacked, but the timeline of events straddle the Cass report

Then the school cannot be blamed so much for having such a detrimental policy. But the teacher’s view that their affirmation was harmful to the child was confirmed by the Cass report.

When was the outcome of the Keira Bell case out? And the Nolan Report podcast with David Bell talking about the Tavistock?

Is she genuinely concerned for the child's wellbeing or does she just believe children shouldn't be transitioned? It's a subtle but important distinction.

What is the distinction that you see here? Surely people who believe that children shouldn't be transitioned hold that view because they think that this is harmful to children. Do you think there are people who think that transing children is harmless, but they still object to it (why)?