Teacher'sTribunal collapses ‐ all panel members recuse themselves

[Imnobody4]

A tribunal which was hearing claims that a teacher was sacked for challenging her school’s transgender policy has collapsed after a member made anti-Conservative slurs and showed “significant prejudice against Christians”.

All three members of the tribunal in Nottingham, including the judge, have recused themselves in an effort to avoid a “perception of bias” against the teacher, who is said to have raised concerns about a socially transitioning eight-year-old.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8acdac08-9939-48a5-859d-98fba8402e84?shareToken=2bb61fa801650b226985d4be7e5a87f4

This was a thread I started earlier . I feel sorry for Hannah.
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5032621-another-court-case-primary-sch-teacher-sacked-on-tribunal-tweets

I’m glad he’s been outed by his own social
media rants. What stupidity. Outrageously prejudiced.
But I feel for the teacher, who now has to wait months more for her chance of justice.

WTAF?

It defies belief that people who sit on tribunals think it's OK to openly express their political and religious prejudices online and that nobody might question whether they carry those prejudices into their work?
Poor Hannah.

Bloody hell! I hope all the costs involved in the tribunal so far are completely down to the tribunal lot to foot the bill and not Hannah and her legal team.

Idiots.

It's a shame the case has collapsed, but looks like the only really sensible course of action.

I see Purkis is an organiser with GMB Union.

Does the article say that they were SIX DAYS into the hearing already? Have I read that correctly?

The tribunal must regularly have to deal with and have training on the protected characteristics in the Equality Act, and yet this guy goes and makes those posts... It just proves to me that to some people there is a definite hierarchy of the characteristics where some are taken much more seriously than others.

So many people conveniently forgetting that sex and religion are protected

It's probably good news that the idiot posted that partial rubbish online. Can you imagine if he hadn't been found out? There's a good chance that the tribunal could have gone against her and who knows if she'd have had the heart to appeal?

I hope that he is barred from ever sitting on another panel aa he has proved that he is incapable of recognising his own bias and recusing himself before causing a mistrial, either that or he purposely sat on the panel in hope of unfairly influencing the outcome of the trial. Both of these potential causes should render him incapable of being a panel member

Poor woman - will she have to go through it all again?

The stress must be astronomical.

The comments listed seem really immature, but more of a sign that SM does encourage freedom of speech and I wouldn't want to live in a world where people's views are oppressed.

That fella in the Tribunal had to step down for saying what he thinks about the Tories etc in his personal social media. The teacher got the sack for saying what she believes is wrong about socially transitioning children at her workplace.

I'm not sure I'm 100% comfortable with anyone losing work over their personal views.

I see your point, Circumferences, but sitting on a tribunal in judgement is not a 'job', or at least it's a different sort of job than most. The whole nature of it requires awareness of these kind of issues and an ability or at least an attempt to rise above personal prejudices.

The recent number of cases where judges or panel members have expressed their political beliefs in a biased manner makes me worry about the ones who have the same beliefs but don’t express them publicly - how does the system ensure that judges etc leave their political views at the courtroom door? How does the system ensure a fair hearing and judgement?

Isn't there a difference between the judiciary / those who sit in judgement engaging in reasoned debate where issues are explored versus using social media in the manner of a ranting teenager displaying hostile attitudes to others?

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/three-is/#:~:text=Impartiality%20is%20essential%20to%20the,discharge%20of%20the%20judicial%20office

The standards members of the judiciary are bound to uphold.

Sounds like this man really has not fulfilled the obligations of his role.