Kevin Lister naming names of those who helped embed ideology in government

[IDareSay]

"To help Rachel Reeves with her £2 billion cut in the civil service & selection of civil servants for dismissal, I have prepared a list of potential names from my case. All the people listed in this thread have caused immeasurable pain & suffering or supported it."

The meeting notes from HoL in 2015 (linked in the 3rd post of this thread on X) are of particular interest:
https://x.com/KevsTribulation/status/1903935561892565074

I could add a dozen or so names too…

Can I nominate the Scottish government

I cant read it, any chance of unrolling the thread or whatever it's called please?

There’s a lot of “likely to be” behind and “was at a meeting when” on that list. I’m not a fan of relatively low level civil servants (a HEO is on about £40k) being named and shamed for something they may or may not have done in the hope of getting them fired. I didn’t like it when it was the trans lobby pushing that kind of behaviour and I don’t like it now.

Trouble is nobody's ever held to account for failing to safeguard children from gender identity or held accountable for failing to follow the Nolan Principles of Public Life.

Some of those minutes are very telling. The arrogance (and professional dangerousness) of Mermaids & Gires at 2015 DfE meeting clearly shows with their demands for GI to be imposed on schools. At no stage do any of the DfE attendees raise issues about whether schools should be used by trans lobby groups or that schools are legally obligated to be politically impartial. They enabled queer theory lobbyists and failed to centre schools, children or safeguarding.

Where was Nolan in all this? Where were the commonsense impact assessments?

Agreed on individuals as this is a systemic failure.

But this exposes the vulnerability of leaving actions with major consequences up to relatively junior personnel who may be ideologues and activists or may lack the experience to have an informed overview.

In the DfE, the senior civil servant Jonathan Slater was responsible for giving Stonewall and other trans extremist groups the green light to access children and schools. So it's reasonable to assume that some junior staff were simply "following orders" rather than engaging any critical thinking about children's needs.
Sex Matters has a fascinating piece documenting some of the extreme political bias that the civil service has indulged in over the years around this issue:

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Briefing_-Can-the-Civil-Service-return-to-impartiality.pdf

Fully agree it's a failure to follow the Nolan Principles and practice safeguarding at a systematic level here. Individuals in relatively junior roles are not necessarily aware of the harm that they are perpetuating.

Obviously it's different if they are made aware of that harm, and how their actions are contributing to it, and then choose to actively continue. But I'm not sure all the people on this list should be named and shamed individually, based on what's in those tweets.

Additionally, it's not helpful calling Islam a "political movement". It's a religion. From further down that chain:

https://x.com/KevsTribulation/status/1904117600138695007

Religious clothing is allowed in public institutions, unless it's a health and safety risk.

When Kevin raised his tribunal case I was very much on his side regarding the protection and safeguarding of vulnerable children and young adults. I hopeed he would win and I think he was probably screaming into the void to be heard, because the child at the centre of what happened was being failed. I fully believe his intentions were good and that he acted out of genuine concern for a child who was being pulled towards irrerversible harm. But I'm not convinced that all of his screaming is helpful. The tweet about religious clothing highlights an intolerance that unfortunately I think he brought in to the college when supporting the vulnerable child - for example by writing the child's actual name on the board in front of the class when discussing a girls' maths competition.

I suspect that the BBC has cherry-picked and obfuscated in this article, but it's another good example of when being "right" can come at a cost, where that cost is failure to deliver on the intended outcome of safeguarding children from harm:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51m4xvmy81o.amp

I fully support Kevin not using the (presumably opposite sex) chosen name of the child and instead gesturing. It's not what I would do but equally, it's not disrespectful. Also, I fully support Kevin not using "neutral" pronouns for the child in question. KCISE and the Cass Report make it clear that social transition is not a neutral act, so any suggestion that the child may not actually be their sex is affirming that child. Personally, I will use a nickname, including one normally used for the opposite sex, if the child and the parents have asked people to do this. There are all sorts of names that sound like they are for the opposite sex e.g. Tracy, Kelly and Alice are all used as boys'/men's names. But I won't use preferred pronouns if they differ from the person's sex - I'll just use no pronouns at all (not too dissimilar from Kevin's gesturing).

And while he's right from a safeguarding perspective that some parents may be exhibiting Munchausen by Proxy behaviours when affirming their child, the vast majority are likely to have been advised by professionals that affirming a transgender identity is important, possibly taking it "step by step" and "centring the child" etc. Most parents act out of love. The fear that their child is at risk of suicide if they don't affirm (because they've read this on social media and/or have been told it by professionals) is likely to be the main driver here. Investigating them for MbP is not a first recourse IMO. There would have to be other red flags seen first - from a safeguarding perspective, my first assumption would be that the parents themselves had been "groomed"/coerced and needed support to help them to support their own child.

Given Kevin has specifically named several people in his thread, I hope he has more information on them that justifies naming them. I'm very much on his side here from a safeguarding perspective but uncomfortable at how he's handling it. I wish he had had legal representation at his tribunal instead of representing himself. I'm sorry to sound unsupportive (because he's made some great points about safeguarding and without a doubt, the college let him and a vulnerable child down) but my gut feeling is that he's shooting from the hip re the names on his list, just as he did with the comment about religious clothing, M by Proxy and the girls' maths competition.

Screenshot of tweet re religious clothing ⬇️

Can someone link to a readable version for those of us not on TwiX please?

@BiologicalRobot @Tallisker some screenshots for you... hopefully appearing in the right order 🤞

Part 1 ⬇️

Part 2 ⬇️

Agreed @Caravaggiouch
There's no way a HEO had any power either way to influence any major decisions or put people on barred lists.

IF the first two emails are Kevin's sole 'evidence' for sacking people, it's a poor show. They read as standard holding responses, make no judgements and have zero bearing on any senior decisions made or allegations towards KL's conduct.

They were no more 'likely' to have done anything more than admin under instruction from a grade 6 or 7.

A burning desire for accountability should not throw people who are potentially as trapped by institutional capture as everyone else, under the bus.

Thank you @BonfireLady

I agree that many of those listed are too junior and he’s simply lashing out but in principle it’s a bloody brilliant idea. I know it’s better to go for Golden Bridges and I do but part of me absolutely loves the idea of a GI Nuremberg trials bringing home to these people the impact of their actions. Not realistic I know but a terf can dream.

There's several threads about this bloke and I wasn't sure which one to update. Went with the most recent I could find. Anyway things are moving apace with his appeal. I can't link the Crowd fund but, perhaps, I can copy the recent update?

The Upper Tribunal have set a date of the 12th August for the initial oral hearing in my appeal against the DBS decision to put me on the Children’s Barred List (CBL). At this meeting we will
agree with the judges the basis of my appeal.

The Upper Tribunal also issued instructions on 14th May. These instructed the DBS to (1) fully disclose in the document bundle a substantial document they had redacted in its entirety and (2) to respond within one month to my claims which I submitted on the 7th February.

^The DBS had asked the Upper Tribunal to restrict access to the document bundle and the Upper Tribunal have agreed to this. This means that when the bundle is complete, I cannot make it available online and if someone wants access to it, they must make a request to the Upper Tribunal. Because of this I have not posted the appeal document online, though I will talk through the basis of the claims in my video update, see ^

The 14th May was also the deadline the Upper Tribunal gave to the DBS to confirm they would have representation at the oral hearing. The Upper Tribunal have confirmed the DBS did not take up this invite. Thus, the claims I state will be unopposed by the DBS.

In my representations to the DBS, I repeatedly stated that it is the managers of New College Swindon and Swindon Borough Council who pose a serious and immediate risk to children through their systemic attempts to convince children they are born in the wrong body, for encouraging children to embark on experimental medical pathways, and for ignoring safeguarding processes. Thus, I have demanded that the DBS should review the documentation submitted with a view to determining if the managers of New College Swindon and the Swindon Borough Council should be included on the CBL. In any review the DBS subsequently carry out then they must take into consideration New College Swindon’s statement in the preliminary hearing that Student A had “transitioned” and that there is a significant risk that she has already suffered serious harm.

It is likely that this dilemma is the cause of the DBS’s reticence in taking me on off the CBL.

This case is important to teachers and schools across the country. If I am successful, then any teacher who encourages a child to believe they are of the opposite sex will be at risk of being included on the Children Barred List, and any gender critical teacher can safely report other teachers to the DBS who are doing this in the expectation that an appropriate review will be carried out in accordance with the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. If I am not successful, then the current mess that schools are in will not be untangled.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the DBS are funding the legal costs of their defence by indefinitely putting their hands in the pockets of the taxpayers’ and they do this with no democratic oversight. Despite all the evidence of harm, they are continuing to do this to enforce the most destructive and bizarre ideology that the population of this country has ever been subjected to. I therefore thank you all again for keeping me in the fight with your continued support.

I've not watched the YouTube.

It would be good if staff pushing trans ideology were subject to DBS referrals. To me it would seem in line with Cass.

Thank you for posting this video @lcakethereforeIam

I only listened to the first half (the "TERF" section, not the maths bit) and it certainly raises some interesting points about the case.

Obviously this will all need to come out through the two hearings but a few thoughts from me on listening to him speak:

• he says that the DBS accepted that there had been an error in what was reported to them and that comments he supposedly said to student A (the transitioning female) had actually been said to student B (student A's friend). I'm now curious about how much was said to student A - one of the things I felt most uncomfortable about with this case was that it seemed like he was potentially bullying student A. If most of his comments were about student A to student B, that muddies the waters a lot because it's impossible to bully someone who isn't there. I appreciate that's got more relevance to his EAT than the DBS case but it's still a key point.
• he talks a bit about the managers (e.g. the ones he names above) and their direct involvement in what he sees as a failure to safeguard student A. It will be really interesting to see what comes to out in the hearing on this part because as a basic principle I agree with the point that teachers who promote gender identity belief are safeguarding risk (even if they are doing it with the best of intentions because they haven't understood that social transition can lead to a pathway of medical intervention that has no evidence behind it)
• although he's been tweeting comments since the start of this case (including the bizarre comment above about Islamic clothing), I don't recall seeing any tweet from him that suggests he's a safeguarding risk. He's correct that he's legally allowed to hold and tweet about his "gender critical belief" and I can't imagine what he said about islamic clothing is either illegal or indicative that he is a safeguarding risk.

I find it hard to take too seriously anyone who refers to Islam as a ‘political movement’.

I don't get what he's on about. I wondered if he meant non-Muslims wearing Islamic dress, but from the picture they look convincingly Muslim to me! That comment makes him seem quite odd.

Despite all the evidence of harm, they are continuing to do this to enforce the most destructive and bizarre ideology that the population of this country has ever been subjected to.

Hard not to agree with him on this point. Collective loss of critical thinking by those who ought to know better.

@Sunnyperiods @rebmacesrevda I agree. But his odd comments on X don't make him a safeguarding risk. And obviously by this point, he had already lost his job, so wasn't subject to any policy that a school/college has about teachers' social media use.

These two hearings are going to come down to matters of law and establishing that the relevant thresholds were met for each of the decisions (the decision to add him to the barred list and the decision to terminate his employment). His video explains clearly why these decisions may not have been sound. If he didn't bully student A and if he centred safeguarding in his approach and if he didn't bring his bizarre views about Islam into the classroom (or any other personal/political beliefs**), it's difficult to see how the DBS and college can defend themselves.

** I appreciate that "gender critical belief" is classed as a philosophical belief. But if a globe-earth believer lost his/her job for talking about the earth being a globe in the workplace, there would be no ruling on whether the earth was flat or a globe. There would only be a ruling on whether holding the belief that the earth was a globe was WORIADS. It has been determined in court that holding the belief that there are two sexes (and that these are immutable) is WORIADS. Given both (earth/sex) are a belief about observable science, it seems reasonable that a teacher should be allowed to express either or both of these "beliefs" in a school or college.

He has now received go ahead for an Employment Tribunal Appeal.
I know he's stubborn but that's the only way to win. I don't need to agree with all his views to hope he wins.

I am delighted to confirm my appeal against New College Swindon has been accepted in the Employment Appeals Tribunal today on the following grounds:

1 - The college's gender reassignment policy was not properly considered.

2 - The college did seek to change my beliefs.

https://x.com/KevsTribulation/status/1928130752358604830?t=W7h253rLtA0o-pLZNuuIhg&s=19

In his summary remarks, the judge said this case will test for the first time the fundamental conflict between Article 9 in the Human Rights Act to hold a view and discrimination legislation in the Equality Act.

x.com/KevsTribulation/status/1928130755198161019?t=W7h253rLtA0o-pLZNuuIhg&s=19

A very long and interesting XThread from the Stark Naked Brief

'Meet Kevin Lister—a maths teacher sacked in 2021 for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns.'

'Today, he takes his fight to the Appeals Tribunal.'

'The outcome could reshape British education.'

Thread 🧵
x.com/StarkNakedBrief/status/1928072042152149164?t=C2G9ljveRR00EtXgYikfNg&s=19

A lot of what Kevin Lister is saying seems to be reasonable - so just clutching at straws trying to understand the 'religious clothing' tweet.

Does anyone recognize the flag that the people are standing in front of? Any idea what the event is?

I think the flag is Home Office and they must be staff. I suspect it's a bit of sour grapes about Christians being told not to wear visible crosses, not to be allowed silent prayer etc. [Not specific to this picture]