Kevin Lister

[Davros]

I am sure this has come up here before but I wanted to give a reminder as a LOT of gardening still needs to be done. I know March is mentioned, but I got this update this week. An outline:

"I was dismissed from New College Swindon for not referring to a female as a male.

I had raised two safeguarding referrals. One about my student and the other about a transactivist teacher who boasted about how many students she had directly supported to "transition."

I was accused of transphobia for this and subsequently dismissed. The College referred me to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) for causing "emotional harm to a transitioning child" and not believing a child can transition.

I will be taking my case to the Bristol Employment Tribunal of the 18th March. My claims are unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal under S100 of the Employment Act, direct discrimination and indirect discrimination.

I am litigating in person, to keep costs down, but there are still costs incurred associated with obtaining advice, logistics, etc.

I want to litigate in person to demonstrate to other teachers that the justice system is open to them.

On the 19th December, the day the transgender guidance for schools was finally published, the DBS sent me a letter to confirm they would uphold the New College Swindon's safeguarding accusation against me and so, bar me from children's workforce. This puts me on a par with people like the Soham murderer, Ian Huntley.

This is a catastrophic abuse of state power, and this should concern everyone who wants to live in a society governed by the rule of law.

I will therefore be launching a judicial review to appeal this decision and funding to assist this will be greatly appreciated."

Kevin Lister lost his case months ago. He didn't have much of a leg to stand on from a legal perspective and was expressing homophobic views as well as dealing inappropriately with a young teenager who identified as trans

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5031546-teacher-kevin-listers-court-case-starts-today-on-tribunal-tweets

This thread has more information, especially on the later pages after the verdict was reached.

I just looked quickly at the thread and didn’t see evidence of homophobia, etc, which his is being accused of in this post ^^

It seems he represented himself, which is probably why it went awry.

It's referenced in literally the second post of the page I linked. As well as elsewhere in the thread...

An anonymous poster offering their opinion and slant on a paraphrase of something isn’t evidence. It’s an opinion.

Please, read the thread.

It was noted in court that he'd made comments that gay relationships weren't valid, and that being gay was a choice.

He also described a 13 year old boy being abused by his 28 year old teacher as "having the time of his life".

Instead of raising safeguarding concerns correctly through the school, he picked on a trans identified pupil in class.

This is not a man who should be teaching.

Interesting, I took it at face value. I need to read some more

I do feel I have to come back to this.

“It was noted in court that he'd made comments that gay relationships weren't valid, and that being gay was a choice.”

1. What does the word ‘valid’ mean is the context of relationships? Relationships don’t come with a ticket or certificate which can be valid or invalid. It makes no sense to claim a relationship is ‘valid’ or to think people must agree that others’ relationships are valid.
2. Some lesbians do think sexual orientation is a choice and strongly oppose the ‘born this way’ narrative.

picked on a trans identified pupil in class.

I would need a bit of background to this. There is a complex and treacherous relationship between children who claim to be the opposite sex and the adults they expect to play along. It’s humiliating enough to be expected to pretend the emperor is wearing clothes, without this being demanded by those who you are supposed to have authority over, in a group setting.

I'm not going to dignify the idea that gay relationships aren't valid with a response, no matter what word salad you dress it up in.

If you are genuinely interested, I say again: read the thread. There is a link in there to the full judgement which is free to download. I would recommend reading that too as it goes into some detail.

I honestly don’t know what is meant by a ‘valid’ relationship. What does that mean @Flickersy ?

On the face of it I don’t think it’s fair that teachers are expected to tip toe around changing pro nouns and be expected to know what the kids current gender thinking is. I think they should be able to disagree, to hold GC views, to say it out loud and to say in a class room setting. If not then schools and colleges just become the echo chamber of nonsense that we see developing in some places.
but… the existence and influence of gender theory is no one child’s fault and they should be supported in whatever way gets them through it. They shouldn’t be ridiculed and shamed in front of their peers.
I 100% think he should not have been faced with a gender questioning pupil and not had the tools to deal with it. I think his safeguarding concern was valid.
But I also don’t think he handled appropriately.

I'm not going to dignify the idea that gay relationships aren't valid with a response, no matter what word salad you dress it up in.

This on its own is hardly a reason to ban someone from teaching though. There will be plenty of teachers who are not on board with same sex marriage or believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and they will be perfectly good teachers.

It would be like saying “Those shorts you are wearing aren’t valid”, “That tree over there- that tree isn’t valid.”, “This afternoon- it isn’t a valid afternoon”, “Your car - isn’t a valid car”. It doesn’t make sense. You need to be able to define distinct terms which something must meet in order to qualify as that thing, in order to claim something doesn’t meet the criteria and cannot be validated as genuinely being that thing.

More than one thing can have a ‘relationship’, eg - a house has a relationship with the street where it belongs. Two people can have all sorts of relationships- neighbours, friends, family relations, lovers, spouses, co-workers, etc. You need to define the actual terms of the relationship in order to say whether a particular case belongs. Eg - “Since you two live in cities 300 miles apart, your claim to be neighbours isn’t valid”, “Since you two spend no time together, take no interest in each other, have no shared history or experiences together, and have no informal exchanges, your claim that you are friends isn’t valid”, etc.

So without that kind of qualification, saying a type of relationship isn’t a valid one is more like saying “That magpie isn’t a valid bird”.

Although If KL appeals the DBS thing I do hope he gets some assistance. He really isn’t up to mounting his own defence.

Very Interesting update on KL’s gofundme page…

”Important Announcement in my appeal against the DBS:

On the 12th April the DBS submitted a request to the Upper Tribunal for a four month stay of proceedings so they could review their decision to include me on the Children's Barred List for not socially transitioning a child without parental consent following their acknowledgement that they may have made a mistake in doing so.

The Upper Tribunal responded by giving the DBS a deadline of the 24th June to complete a review of their decision to include me on the children's barred list.

On the evening of the 13th June, (the day the Labour Party manifesto was released with its commitment to a conversion therapy ban) the DBS made a further submission to the Upper Tribunal to request that the stay of proceedings be extended for a further 7 months, thus flying in the face of the previous instruction.

I submitted my objection to the Upper Tribunal. This stated the DBS was "buying time" and the request was an attempt by a public body, that has clearly overstepped its remit, to be held to account. In addition, the DBS admitted that correspondence to me had been misdirected, and so it is in breach of the data protection act.

As of this evening (21st June), the Upper Tribunal has not replied to the DBS request for a further stay of proceedings, so the DBS will have to complete its review by the 24th June as directed previously by the Upper Tribunal and advise me accordingly.

I would like to thank everyone who has supported me so far in this important case that is relevant to both safeguarding in schools and the relevant powers of government organisations that can impose extra-judicial punishment without accountability.”

Very interesting.

Given the changes to kcsie it's hard to see why he must be barred. As under that he'd be following safeguarding policy

What is kcsie?

I think it’s Keeping Children Safe In Education.

Yes :)

Another update from Lister…

Today by Kevin Lister:

Here is a brief timetable of events in my appeal against the DBS up to the 24th June deadline and these are set against some key external events for context:

13th Jan 2023 – New College Swindon reported me to the DBS for safeguarding

15th August 2023 – The DBS sent me their minded to bar letter, which accuses me of "appearing to hold an attitude whereby I am against the gender transitioning of children and referencing scientific studies."

13th Sept 2023 – I respond to the DBS rebutting all the accusations against me.

7th Dec 2023 – The DBS Tweets that they have won an inclusivity award, and they boast about the service they deliver for transgender applicants, (see photo)

19th Dec 2023 – The DBS puts me on the Children’s Barred List (CBL); this is the day that the Government’s widely anticipated guidance for schools on gender question children was released and it fully vindicated my actions. The DBS used everything I said in my response to their accusations as justification to put me on the CBL. They further justified their decision by accusing me of not following the College’s Gender Reassignment policy which was withdrawn on the 27th January 2023.

4th January - I launched my appeal against the DBS to the Upper Tribunal.

27th March - I lost my case in the Employment Tribunal, and the judgement used the fact that I was on the CBL as evidence against me, even though the college witnesses acknowledged that there was no evidence that I had debated and harassed Student A in the class as they had claimed.

5th April - The Cass Report is issued. It acknowledged that social transition is an active intervention and there is no scientific evidence to support transitioning. It further vindicated my actions.

12th April - The DBS wrote to me to acknowledge that they may have made an error in putting me on the CBL. They said, “Firstly, after careful consideration, it appears the Respondent may have attributed comments as having been made by the Applicant made to Student A when in fact, those comments may have been made to Student B. Secondly, the Respondent is aware that further relevant information may now be available which was not available at the time of its decision relating to the Applicant.” The DBS asked for a 4 month “stay in proceedings” followed by time for a further review.

17th April - I wrote to the Upper Tribunal to object to the DBS request for a stay of proceedings and said that I should be immediately removed from the CBL and the new evidence that the DBS have should be disclosed to me. I complained that the DBS are trying to “buy time.”

24th April - The Upper Tribunal responded to give the DBS two months' notice to complete their review, giving them a deadline of 24th June.

13th June - The DBS wrote to the Upper Tribunal to ask again for a 4 month stay of proceedings to complete their review and a further 3 months for a joint review of their review. This was on the day that the Labour Party manifesto was released with its commitment to making hate speech an aggravated crime and to legislate against “conversation therapy.”

16th June - I again objected to this to the Upper Tribunal about the DBS’s attempt to buy more time.

The Upper Tribunal didn’t respond to either correspondence. Put simply, it looks like the DBS left the letter to the last moment to try to arm wrench the Upper Tribunal into making a decision to stay the proceeding for a further seven months.

24th June - The deadline passed, and the DBS did not issue their review, or an interim statement on it, or any of the new evidence they claim to have.

It is now for the Upper Tribunal to determine what actions to take now that the DBS have failed to meet the set deadlines, and I have been told that the judges are reviewing the case.

Once again, thank you for your support in this case.

I really hope Kevin finds someone to represent him for his appeal.

Tribunal Tweets are reporting from the Upper Tribunal where Kevin Lister (KL) is appealing his prohibition from working with children in any regulated activity.

KL was referred to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) by his employer, a further and higher education establishment, in January 2023.

I will post the tweets so far but that's all as I have an interview at 4pm and must change etc. I can paste tomorrow morning too.

The morning session is here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1993270890549608663.html

From TT

Judge Smith asked the counsel to address the grounds of appeal when Kevin Lister's application to appeal the DBS barring decision when we return at 2pm.

From TT

J - we move on to the potential errors of fact. Ground one proportionality - error of law point?

AL - ground 9/

GW - content.

J - now grounds 1-8.

AL - skeleton argument deals with social media allegation on ground 8.

J - 4 allegations are those set out in second decision.

GW - where does social media (SM) touch on grounds?

J - that will be made clear.

AL - ground at 1 para 9 - two fold.
Student A is represented as upset due to Sept 2021. Respondent (R) concedes no finding of fact that that the conversation caused the upset.

AL - R say in decision letter - unable to modify yr behaviour. Inference that the upset of A is taken for granted. R says no finding of fact that convo caused the upset. At no point has A's feelings or wishes been sought by the college.

AL - we don't now what A felt re decision to transition and how to separate from general upset. College has attrributed 100% to KL. No evidence that Kl caused upset or EH. Sept 2021 - convo with student A and discussion re maths competition.

AL - student A initiated convo re maths competition. Its been taken as a given fact that A was upset aand KL was the sole cause for not using male gendered language. Conjecture, not factual finding.

GW _ J you need to ID fact. DBS has not found as fact that A was upset. Decn ltr says it is evident A was upset during convo, which you (KL) acknowledged. So no dispute.

GW - that is not a finding of fact that A was upset during that conversaation. He says DBS as at a result of the convo. DBS said during the convo, not as a result.

GW - secondly ltr says - you have been unable to recognise the impact yr actions plural have had. Pount is actions cumulatively - found as fact.

GW - Student a and A's other have said A was upset as a result of this. That may or may not be correct. Fact is KL was told she was ups

From TT

AL - if DBS relies on as a result paras 24-25 of response, upset is used re actions of KL. Conflation of refusal of KL to use the language with upset. A has never been recorded as having a problem with KL apart from refusal to use gendered language.

AL - lots of questions on that.

J - I need to consider materiality.

AL - ground 2 - erred in fact that A was told she'd be a burden on NHS. I have been instructed to consider withdrawing that ground.

AL - A number of comments attribited to KL as Student B's original comments - going down drug use, too young to do this - "burden" stands alone as a criticsm of A. He has never criticised A. KL vehemently denies that comment.

AL - Wholly false that he said that.

J are you withdrawing ot on materiality?

AL - yes - on grounds that was one of a number of.

Correction GW - yes - on grounds that was one of a number of.

AL - ground 3 - factual error relates to a given that has been relied on the respondent (R) and the College. Student B submitted heading "stuff that Kevin said" - doesn't mean what was recorded on behalf of Student B was accurate.
Ltr - you accepted the accuracy of all comments that B made. KL accepted accuracy of list. The words fear and afraid are used (by B) - no basis that A felt fear.

AL - A said I would return to classes if KL stopped using deadname. A would return if language was difference. Fear is an assertion by B. He accepted wordings were accurate. A enlisted self in the maths competition, not enlisted by KL, as B stated.