GC Teacher sues government

[KnowsWhatAGiraffeIs]

Can't see a thread on this yet.
This is exclusive in the Mail on Sunday: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12988019/Teacher-sues-Government-misgendering-student.html
He holds GC beliefs and refused to use a child's trans name in the classroom so he got barred from teaching and working with children.
Good on him, hopefully this case will be a landmark for teachers.

Ooh now, that's interesting noble. If sacked last year and told last month he faced a ban for life, you'd expect the findings to be on there.

Actually I don't see that it necessarily would have been changed on SIMs etc unless it was an official legal name change. You're not supposed to change the child's legal details without legal reason to do so.

For (very common) example, mum shacks up with a new boyfriend and tries to change child's last name to boyfriend's name. We didn't change names without legal documentation in any school I ever worked in. That's why you'd usually go down the register in a new class and get a handful of kids telling you their preferred names. It's entirely up to the teacher whether they pander to that or not, and usually teachers (being well educated adults) can use their own judgement.

I'd also counter argue the "school isn't the place for teachers to share their personal beliefs" that this should apply to teachers who buy into gender woo as well, so going along with trans names and pronouns is also sharing their personal (pro gender) beliefs. 🤷‍♀️ There is no way of getting that right that works for everyone at the moment which is a big issue for why that trans guidance was so needed.

Yes the DBS barred him, not the TRA or NCTL. He hasn't been barred from teaching he's been barred from working with any children at all full stop which is a much bigger consequence. Does the DBS even have recourse or legal jurisdiction to do this if no criminal conviction has taken place?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-referral-guide-making-representations/dbs-barring-and-referrals-making-representations#contact-the-barring-team

According to this he should have had an opportunity to put his case to the DBS before they made their decision and been able to see the evidence that was used when (presumably) his employer referred him. There doesn't seem to be any kind of right to appeal once a decision is made, which is why I presume this is going on to a court case.

There is a section about causing "emotional harm" to children which is what they must have decided was the issue here. The examples are all much much more severe than the summary of what happened in this teacher's case though.

Could this, potentially, be used by students against teachers? Don't like Mr X - let's get him in trouble by changing name, if he doesn't use the new name he can lose his job? Or was there more to it?

The worrying thing is that the DBS were involved. This trans captured organisation has "special rules" for trans adults allowing them to avoid the rigorous procedures all other adults must abide by that allows them to avoid scrutiny of previous name changes and convictions. A massive safeguarding loophole that they just refuse to close for some unknown reason.

So it's a reasonable argument that they were politically inclined to get involved with this.

For anyone finding it incredible that the DBS is biased in favour of concealing criminal acts committed by one group, here's KPSS's thorough research into yet another scandal in the making:

https://kpssinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DBS-Checks-and-Identity-Verification.pdf

The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to individuals who change their gender when changing their identity. These are exceptional rights that are only granted to individuals from this group. The result is that identity verification is compromised, meaning that there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check and displayed on the certificate will be accurate or complete. These exceptional privacy rights also allow an applicant who has changed gender to request that all their previous names are withheld from the DBS certificate that is issued. This right to conceal previous identities is not given to anyone else: disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding and DBS certificates issued to all other individuals display all other names the applicant has used. Applicants who change their gender are also permitted to conceal their sex and the DBS certificate issued will display their acquired gender instead. This right is not granted to any other individual: the importance of sex to safeguarding means that for all other applicants, their sex is always displayed.

Talk about driving a coach and horses through safeguarding! How the hell have legislators allowed this to happen?

Talk about driving a coach and horses through safeguarding! How the hell have legislators allowed this to happen?

Politicians know. But (for all the reasons that women on here understand) they are either too scared of the sacred caste or just aren't bothered about safeguarding children to close this clearly evidenced loophole.
Presumably it will continue until the inevitable tragedy happens and then "lessons will be belatedly learnt".

Sure, MrsO. My surprise was more rhetorical than real, sadly.

If only Ian Huntley had known, he could have sidestepped a background check entirely legally...

DBS are dragging its heels. Kevin's update on his case on gofundme, today:

"5pm today (13th June) was the deadline set by the Upper Tribunal for the DBS to respond to my claims against their decision to put me on the Children's Barred List for being against transitioning.

The DBS have submitted no response, and so are now in breach of the Upper Tribunal case management orders."

Ooh interesting. Maybe that’s because there is no reasonable justification for their actions?

The DBS have utterly lost their way if they are giving preferential treatment to a group that is known to include paedophiles and rapists and blatantly discriminating against a man literally just trying to do the right thing and which follows the Cass review.

Yes. Although it appears that the school has an unlawful policy which also goes against the Cass recommendations and included him raising a safeguarding report because he was concerned about the student taking cross sex hormones in the case for firing him.

Meanwhile the DBS appear to have lost their minds in barring him while giving anyone who claims to be trans a free pass and making it nigh on impossible to link any previous convictions with an individual. What could possibly go wrong?

feweek.co.uk/teacher-sacked-in-trans-student-name-row-can-appeal/