It also makes it impossible to challenge the apparent DBS overreach in getting involved and barring him as a threat to children. I suspect he was referred for refusing to follow management instructions involving a vulnerable student and they decided that warrants banning him.
This is from the judgment re the DBS barring.
5.133 The Respondent referred the Claimant to the Disclosure and Barring
Service (‘DBS’) on 13 January on the advice of the LADO [802-11]. He
was subsequently barred from participating in regulated activities with
children [836-9]. Within its reasoning, the DBS referred to the views that
he had expressed to it, which included that transgenderism was a ‘cult’
and that parents of children who transitioned ought to have been
“investigated for Munchausen by proxy - thus enforcing their beliefs.”
5.134 In relation to Student A, the DBS concluded that the Claimant’s conduct
had “caused emotional harm to a child”. It was concerned that, in the
future, “you would…impose your views onto a child, irrespective of their
choice, or whether your contributions… or invited by them. You would
likely have a serious lack of regard for how this would impact children in
your care.”
The second point could equally be applied to TRA teachers.