It is indeed @AutumnCrow
Thank you for sharing @ToiletTroubles . Definitely a very important case @WarriorN
I'm no lawyer but the opening comments from Clare Page's seem to be very strong. If I'm understanding it correctly, the argument is that one of the reasons that the case was (allegedly unfairly) won previously was because confidentiality and copyright were conflated.
Some tweets that caught my eye:
The idea must have some element of originality not in the public domain, when looking at whether info is confid, need to look at the circumstances, not just the disclosure but the wider circumstances. In TV & radio - ideas shared cannot be used by recipient. In sex ed in schools we are at the opposite end of the spectrum - info is designed to be used by the recipients
Would a 15 year old in a sex ed class on consent, objectively believe that the info being imparted to them was confidential and we say the answer to that is no.
The 2nd R says the slides are not teaching materials, they are a commercial product. This isn't credible. It isn't education if the recipient cannot use the information.
the question of confidentiality here did not consider the disclosure to the children.
2Rs says it would be 'fatal' to the charity if this one set of slides were to become public. That is simply not tenable.
I'm not familiar enough with the original case to know more about why it won but my first reaction on reading Tribunal Tweets' notes so far is that the original judgement sounds like it came from a time of fear. When nobody dared question the strange edict that it will be dangerous for children if parents see what they are being taught. Hopefully that sounds laughable today and exactly like the safeguarding risk that it is. No secret lessons indeed.