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."

From TT

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.

GW - if it's ... quotes from letter re what B recorded. Not sure if KL is pleading B exaggerated. No finding abt this - finding is that these things were said.

J - so what was said, no reference to fear?

GW - words are agreed = completely accurate.

AL ground 4 - failed in DAR by airing negative views abt gender change statement errs into value judgment not fact. It elludes to a convo as if KL initiated it.
Context was A &B approached KL and invited him to express his concerns to udnerstand why he was taking the position.

AL - omitted how KL spoke with them. Difficult convo and diff opposition and route a student is taken can be made with total respect for the students. young people he thought were vulnerable.

AL - presumption that by speaking to them when they approached him is treating them without DAR. Very serious factual ommissions.

From TT

GW - my submission - if ground of appeal is fact - irrationality, that would be an error of law. If an application to amend, then can deal with it.

J - skeleton was late so be fair, need to allow time to DBS. Are you seeking to amend?

Sorry distracted by Glinner's case.

From TT

AL - ground 4 is an error of ommission - an issue of fact - decision to bar was based on DAR, proportionality.

J are you taking it to proportionality?

missed

GW - there is no error pointed to in the DBs decn. It's what was said. I accept on proportionality. If irrational, then that is a very high bar indeed. The DBS framework that colleges set policy, it's not irrational that colleges expect children to be addressed [in language].

AL - Ground 5 - DBS says not a case abt medical transition. He raised a safeguarding case on day one that social transition and medical transition are linked, made clear in the Interim Cass Review at that time.
AL - Why would my client make substantial references to the Cass Review if he didn't care? GW said DBS come to this with a open mind. It's always been abt transition. A GP wrote and supported KL because social tranistion concretised a child's [missed] . DBS can't say it's not abt medical transition.

AL - It is of crucial relevance 22 Sept 2022 that Dept of Education response to KL's concerns abt hormonal drugs - cross sex hormones.

AL - having reviewed yr complaint and thru correspondence with the College abt use of cross sex hormones. For College to say no concern that the chidl was considering taking corss sex hormones, is a falsehood. DBS took the college's position.

AL -KL representations cited Cass 26 times, and set out the links between social tranistion, cross sex hormones and surgery. College refers to A and students transition, not differentiating between social and medical.

AL - KL said he was conflcited a GRP did not deal with safeguarding and didn;t deal with pathways. missed. he had concern and empathy for A.
J - an argument DBS found a mistake it didn't make.

AL doesn't udnerstand.

J - no evidence of A pursuing amedical transition.
GW - a safeguarding interview with A - no indication that she wished to pursue medical transition. ET found no evidence undertaking medical transition or surgery. So not a falsehood.

Always abt treatment of children in classroom - maths lesson not pastoral lesson.

GW - social transition always precedes medical.

From TT

GW - a safeguarding interview with A - no indication that she wished to pursue medical transition. ET found no evidence undertaking medical transition or surgery. So not a falsehood.

Always abt treatment of children in classroom - maths lesson not pastoral lesson.

GW - social transition always precedes medical.
AL - DFE letter was provided to DBS.

GW - everything DFE saw is material we have seen, apart from anything KL provided.

AL - ground 6 - R erred in fact by Kl putting safeguarding ahead of everything including his career is value judgment. R concedes KL said safeguarding was paramount - annd that is evidence highlights KL's inability to empathise.

Stopping there for now.

I'll come back around 5pm to finish up.

From TT

AL - value judgment not finding of fact.

recorded in meeting minutes that KL asked that his comments be passed on to student A if A is upset and apologises. A factual record of empathy and contrition not included in the DBS decision.

GW - again - there maybe an attack on a finding of fact that DBS didn't make. The DBS's judgment is that the focus on this being a safeguarding issue and nothing else - upset and distress is lack of empathy explored in detail. Can't be attacked as irrational.

AL - ground 7 - bundle reference - R has stated KL did not escalate concerns with management, which he could have done while treating students appropriately.
Appropriately - heavy lifting.

Al - In R's response, KL did raise issues. R says the point being made, KL shd have abided by the policies in place.

It was a policy which he didn't know abt it to use gendered language as a blanket rule - that doesn't take safeguarding needs of student into account.

AL - ommission of fact - how could he follow a policy that he thought was a risk for his student. Error of fact, at least an error of ommission.
AL - GRP wasn't known to KL. It just came up. 2 separate policies that crash and no safeguarding provisions in GRP.

J - what you are saying is it was an unconsious breach of policy?

AL - yes

From TT

GW - KL was unhappy with safeguarding lead's response and did not escalet to senior management.

GW - only finding of DBS at issue - he didn't escalate the concern further. Evidence from college that they'd find a work around. For clarity, not a finding it's been said KL didn't know. ET was doubtful abt that.

GW - ET lists policies - Claimant said he did not access or read the GRP - that evid is thrown into doubt. Referece to having read the polciy when he made his first safegardingc omplaint. No need to make a finding. His contract required him to be familiar with policies.

GW quotes from ET judgment. Policies were on the intranet - for clarity, not part of this case.

J - the tweeting was not part of the ET - not a specific evidence.

GW - Part of college ix, but not ET.

AL - ground 8 - I may have to confess the link to other allegations is dealt with tangentially after ground 8 - I am going to ask that I make submissions on ground 8 and then deal with other allegations.

GW - is there a ground of appeal.

AL - proportionality grounds on basis of refusal.

J make submission on ground 8 and then tell me.

AL - proprotionality arguments this am evoked Art 9 right to freedom of belief. Policy cited repeatedly during investigation and DB process engages art 9. DBS says it is the responsibility of NCS to set policies on pronouns and language.

AL - relevant policies. We are dealing with a highly contested issue that can only be relevant in as far as there are two sides, delicate sensitive risk laden transitioning of a young person. Case by case - policy or dictat has been imposed on staff.

AL - not that KL imposed his view. DFE has been stoically silent since Dec 2023 I submit because it is so controversial. DFE cited Cass and said better information is needed on outcomes for children who socially transition.

AL - It's disengenous to say NCS had a responsibility to issue a policy on social responsibility. If they did, it shd have been somethging other than a blanket approach on all staff, all students and the specific student. Error of fact that it had to issue a policy.

AL - No reading of Sutcliffe allows this. In Sutcliffe, Mr Justice Peverrill (sp?) says there could have been an avoidance of pronouns. My client was instructed by college and the students to sue pronouns. Improper that College had to issue a policy.

AL - missed. Questionable if the policy was lawful. This is all abt the fact that KL did not comply with forced speech.

It is significant that the initial decn was only abt pronouns, using original name and pointing.

From TT

AL - We say all the other allegatiosn were adduced post facto to create a broad picture as an incautious, irresponsible, loose tongued (missed) teacher, the amount to very little - that it is draconian to place him on the CBL.

AL - Twitter posts, online and not shared in classroom, deal with surrogacy, same sex relationship, an american case on a child and teacher (missed). Art 10 is engaged. missed re DBS putting little weight on this.

AL - missed...
A child may feel uncomfortable in class. A lesson KL may have learned is to steer away from uncomfortable comments. The other comments were in discussion with Student B who wanted to now why KL could not submit on compelled speech.

AL - He was labelled a safeguarding risk - one comment on homosexual marriage in a 16 year career.
Missed - too fast.

GW - Ground 8 - the challenge is to sentence It's resposbility of NCS to dev a policy on pronouns and names. It's no part of DBS's case that NCS must have a policy.

GW - The concern of DBS is KL allowed his personl virews to override polcies that NCS had in place in besst interest of students. It's abt whether teachers are entitled to ignore polcies and act on their own views in ways that might be distressing for children.

GW - This policy is broadly comparable with policies in other colleges, not a different world view. Similar policy in Sutcliffe. It's for colleges to make policy, and teachers to follow them and escalate with management where they disagree.

GW - The reference to matters drawn to their attention - so required to consider them, and reach conclusions on them.

J - sufficent detail to make a decision. A lot of food for thought. Decision reserved.

This touches on issues that are very much in fore. I'm awaying towards meeting the arguability test. Not certain on grounds of success [missed].

GW - would be very helpful if you were clear on grounds and whether evidence is needed [if appeal granted]

J - I need to be clear - needs tighter constraints. Decision will come out when I have been able to think it through and in writing as soon as I can. I wish to get this right.

I am grateful to counsel on both sides - useful to have it fleshed out. Thank you.

Court rises.

Many thanks for this @MyrtleLion. Just caught up. Very interesting!

@MyrtleLion thank you so much for this. It was really helpful . It seems insane that he got sacked for questioning this, so shows how far we’ve come, I suppose.

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

Sounds like Peter Tatchell.

To be fair, (and assuming the teacher was female) this is probably the, not very insightful, initial reaction of most men.