SACKED

[ycbm]

We haven't seen the build up to the incident. When people endure being hounded, harassed, intimidated and provoked whilst trying to enjoy their leisure time, they must hold in a lot of justifiable hurt and anger. Of course it appears that she "lost it" quickly and over nothing when one frustration got too much. That's what happens, it's a strategy of trouble-causers.

And if there was provocation, then provocation is a partial defence in law. It doesn't stop a conviction but it does lower the sentence.

 

[maggiestar]

I swear like a trouper and can be very direct. But the second I walked into the classroom I could switch that off no problem and be endlessly patient, avoid confrontation and never once let my language slip. Then I would walk into the staff room with my friends and go back to my default mode. I thought it was quite a normal thing to be able to do but apparently not.

Oh, I swear like a Fishwife in my downtime! Professional face is switched on for work. I have to say though if I was an employer and I had to choose between the person who beats their horse for absolutely no reason in a fit of temper and someone with a milder more controlled nature I know who I would choose.

 

[Sandstone1]

yeah because im whipping up millions of
People to find out his address and where he is and working right now and sending people there ? lucky if I have ten followers on twitter. Then again I couldn’t tell you my log in so I think it would be rather hard for me to start a personal witch hunt ?

But surely, the principle is the same? Just because you are not reaching the same amount of people as CP you are still dong what you are blaming CP of doing. Just in a smaller way.

 

[Sandstone1]

And if there was provocation, then provocation is a partial defence in law. It doesn't stop a conviction but it does lower the sentence.

Bet the pony she beat round the head and kicked in the guts will feel a whole lot better because she had " provocation" from the sabs sat in their car watchiing.....

 

[blitznbobs]

I think if i remember rightly from my law degree the provocation defense is only applicable in murder cases …

 

[skinnydipper]

If this case was taken to court I think it is very likely that her defence would show video of professionals and Olympic athletes beating horses with whips. It's likely she would be found not guilty,

WOW. Is that how it works?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Of course many people have their 'work persona' and their 'downtime persona', and they adjust their conduct and language accordingly between the two.

But I still wouldn't want someone who has been shown to lose it like that with an innocent animal to be in charge of my primary school child. I would not trust her temper not to boil over in the classroom.

That's not saying that she doesn't always behave completely correctly and professionally at work, but it's that I would not be able to trust her to.

 

[Birker2020]

WOW. Is that how it works?

I can’t believe some of these comments.
Sorry I can't find YCBM's reply which you responded to stating the above but just for the record the person who has been sacked would not go to court. If she wants to appeal it wouldn’t involve court proceedings.

Even if it did what Olympic riders or anyone else does or does not do with their horses has absolutely no bearing on the situation whatsoever.

For the umpteenth time, she is in a position of trust. That means she has to uphold certain behaviour and her behaviour, either in or out of the workplace, should not compromise their position within the work setting or bring the school or trust into disrepute.

Where there is a transference of risk, i.e. if she could hit animals she could potentially lose her rag and hit children then the hearing would discuss at length her suitability to continue her role.

 

[Birker2020]

I'm sorry but no LADO has ever watched a video of someone hitting or kicking a horse and decided that it is a Safeguarding Children issue.

Of course its a safeguarding issue. Granted not as serious as the usual stuff going to a LADO like physical, sexual or emotional abuse. But still a safeguarding issue.

Where there is a transference of risk, i.e. if she could hit animals she could potentially lose her rag and hit children then the hearing would discuss at length her suitability to continue her role. If she can lose her temper like that then she is not suitable to be working in the classroom environment.

We encountered a couple of hundred plus cases whilst I worked for the LA and transference of risk was fairly common.

 

[ycbm]

WOW. Is that how it works?

I believe that a good defence would seek to show that hitting horses was a normal daily legal occurrence, but I don't think this will come to court because I don't think what she did will pass the CPS threshold.
.

 

[PapaverFollis]

Hitting a horse is different from hitting a child, especially someone else's child. In terms of the strength of social taboo against it. Just because someone's temper can break though the former, lighter, taboo does not mean that it will also break through the very, very strong latter taboo. It really does not.

We've nearly all slapped a horse on the shoulder or neck with an open hand for biting us or kicking out at one point or another I'm sure... in a reactive way, does that mean we would all open hand slap a child that wasn't ours in the same reactive way? No! Of course it doesn't. The taboo against doing that is far too strong!

 

[ycbm]

I think if i remember rightly from my law degree the provocation defense is only applicable in murder cases …

Thats not correct, sorry. The Sentencing Guidelines are available online if anyone wants to read them. It's used often in Magistrates Courts to try to reduce the sentence for minor assaults.
.

 

[ycbm]

Bet the pony she beat round the head and kicked in the guts will feel a whole lot better because she had " provocation" from the sabs sat in their car watchiing.....

I'm not sure why you've quoted me as if you're replying to me, nobody says what she did was acceptable.

Hunt sabs do a hell of a lot more than sit in their cars, by the way. It was only the one filming who was sat in a car. I support their aims but their methods are often very suspect.
.

 

[palo1]

But surely, the principle is the same? Just because you are not reaching the same amount of people as CP you are still dong what you are blaming CP of doing. Just in a smaller way.

No. it's not the same. One of the absolute key factors is the very public and significant platform that CP has used to encourage a group of known activists/extremists that have form for harassment and abuse to an extreme level. Ordinary people like posters on here do NOT have a platform, nor, hopefully the ability or will to influence a group of extremists to take direct action against an individual.

 

[palo1]

Bet the pony she beat round the head and kicked in the guts will feel a whole lot better because she had " provocation" from the sabs sat in their car watchiing.....

The pony may be facing a very uncertain future though and someone else may end up slapping the pony and kicking it. But that is likely to happen in private so no one will know. Perhaps if the pony has to be sold or rehomed, the sabs will kindly purchase it and 'rescue' it...

 

[Birker2020]

We've nearly all slapped a horse on the shoulder or neck with an open hand for biting us or kicking out at one point or another I'm sure... in a reactive way, does that mean we would all open hand slap a child that wasn't ours in the same reactive way? No! Of course it doesn't. The taboo against doing that is far too strong!

No of course it doesn't automatically mean it will happen and she will hit a child or even lose her rag with one. But whenever there is an element of risk with someone in a position of trust, however slight, that level of risk has to be assessed. It has been assessed and for whatever reasons (that we are not party to) she has been sacked. The decision wasn't to give her additional training which would make people wonder that there may/may not have been previous issues/allegations that has led to this decision so when it may seem harsh to some people, those that are party to the information they have, may be completely justified in reaching their decision.

This is the reality no matter how much you say otherwise I'm afraid. The safety of children always comes first.

 

[eahotson]

Of course its a safeguarding issue. Granted not as serious as the usual stuff going to a LADO like physical, sexual or emotional abuse. But still a safeguarding issue.

Where there is a transference of risk, i.e. if she could hit animals she could potentially lose her rag and hit children then the hearing would discuss at length her suitability to continue her role. If she can lose her temper like that then she is not suitable to be working in the classroom environment.

We encountered a couple of hundred plus cases whilst I worked for the LA and transference of risk was fairly common.

Before I sacked someone for something like that I would like to know if she had ever a] Hit a child at the school or b] threatened to hit a child at the school.Any of us could potentially hit a child.Are you going to ban all adults from the classroom? All of us can and do, regretably loose our temper from time to time.I do not like what this woman did, no one does but the punishment MUST be proportionate.The people she did bring into disrepute was the hunt.

 

[ester]

How do you know it's been assessed?

 

[eahotson]

No of course it doesn't automatically mean it will happen. But whenever there is an element of risk with someone in a position of trust that level of risk has to be assessed. It has been assessed and for whatever reasons (that we are not party to) she has been sacked. There may/may not have been previous issues as I keep saying that has led to this decision so when it may seem harsh to some people, those that are party to the information they have, may be completely justified in reaching their decision.

This is the reality no matter how much you say otherwise I'm afraid. The safety of children always comes first.

Maybe or maybe they are just craven but people do have the right to challenge things if they feel that there is an injustice being done. I doubt this poor woman will ever want to return to a classroom again.

 

[Rowreach]

No. it's not the same. One of the absolute key factors is the very public and significant platform that CP has used to encourage a group of known activists/extremists that have form for harassment and abuse to an extreme level. Ordinary people like posters on here do NOT have a platform, nor, hopefully the ability or will to influence a group of extremists to take direct action against an individual.

He did it again yesterday, publishing a cctv image of a person the police are looking for in connection to the damage at his house.

Now potentially this is the offender, but potentially it is not, and yet he’s inspired a furore among the thousands of followers he has all over his SM.

This could be you one day, going about your business one minute, and finding yourself as an internet target the next, with life changing consequences for you and your family.

 

[Birker2020]

How do you know it's been assessed?

Because the school and their partners would have assessed the risk by holding a panel meeting to discuss the risks and assess her suitability. A professional conduct panel assess the risks and determine the outcome because it would have met the threshold.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Oh, I swear like a Fishwife in my downtime! Professional face is switched on for work. I have to say though if I was an employer and I had to choose between the person who beats their horse for absolutely no reason in a fit of temper and someone with a milder more controlled nature I know who I would choose.

Which would be fine if you actuallyhad 2 people to choose from,as when you are interviewing for a post. However most schools are struggling tofind enoughstaff to keep every class open atm. And that isn't jsut because of Covid, recruitment and retention were in difficulty before the virus struck.

 

[ycbm]

Because the school and their partners would have assessed the risk by holding a panel meeting to discuss the risks and assess her suitability. A professional conduct panel assess the risks and determine the outcome because it would have met the threshold.

If you knew as much about unfair dismissal tribunals as you think you do about this issue, you would know that procedures which are meant to happen are not always carried out by every employer.

You don't know what the school did or did not do, except that they sacked her.
.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

How do you know it's been assessed?

She doesn't! This poster has a very limited experience of taking notes in a few meetings in one local authority. They don't all work inthe same way. If the teacher has indeed beensacked she will very likely get a successful ET outcome but,of course, she may have decided towalk away fromthe school, the press release doesn't make it clear. Should she wish to continue to teach, there is plenty of supply work available.

 

[Birker2020]

If you knew as much about unfair dismissal tribunals as you think you do about this issue, you would know that procedures which are meant to happen are not always carried out by every employer.

You don't know what the school did or did not do, except that they sacked her.
.

I don't know anything about unfair dismissal tribunals and I HAVE NEVER IN ANY OF MY REPLIES said i did so not sure why you think that. As I've stated numerous times i probably minuted over 200 position of trust meetings. Very different.

 

[Birker2020]

She doesn't! This poster has a very limited experience of taking notes in a few meetings in one local authority. They don't all work inthe same way. If the teacher has indeed beensacked she will very likely get a successful ET outcome but,of course, she may have decided towalk away fromthe school, the press release doesn't make it clear. Should she wish to continue to teach, there is plenty of supply work available.

Of course the transference of risk has been assessed. you say i have very limited experience. I don't. A few meeting not correct. Over 200 that i personally convened and minute took, typed up an action plan (an agreed course of actions) which was sent out within 48hrs with minutes that i typed up from my notes during the meeting going out within a SLA timescale.

I only ever write what i know about from my experience, which by the way wasn't a 'few meetings'. I worked for almost 2 yrs (2 weeks shy) and only left as my position came up for permanancy and was filled by a perm member of staff and i was agency. Why the constant need to discredit everything I say?

On my supervisors request i was asked to show this member of staff how i did my job. So i took her under my wing for weeks before she took my job off me despite reassurance from my boss this wouldn't happen and was not the intention. I then worked in another team but hated it so left.

I would never 'make up' stuff and find your tone very unkind.

Your tone is also very patronising tbh.
I'm withdrawing from this thread now as its obvious my point of view will not be considered and it is just giving certain individuals free rein to criticise me. I couldn't care less if you don't believe what i am saying but find it most strange that you would think i would make something up or try to glorify my skills, neither of which i have tried to do.

 

[PapaverFollis]

You have no idea what the school's risk assessment was. None.

All we know is that she was sacked or she left. We do NOT know the reason for her sacking/leaving. It may have had nothing to do with any potential risk and everything to do with reputation. We do not know.

 

[milliepops]

You have no idea what the school's risk assessment was. None.

All we know is that she was sacked or she left. We do NOT know the reason for her sacking/leaving. It may have had nothing to do with any potential risk and everything to do with reputation. We do not know.

PF you need to post your CV to accompany this assertion.

 

[Red-1]

This would have involved a multi agency Position of Trust meeting I would have thought as the perpetrator is in a position of trust with children.

The fact that she has allegedly abused an animal would have bearing on her job because she would be thought of as possible danger to children.

Exactly. And someone somewhere thought that there was a likely inference that this could be passed on due to her role as teacher and quite rightly reported her actions.

I'm afraid you are missing the point. Read reply 7. Bad riding, fat horses etc do not have the potential and it the word is 'potential' to cause harm to children or young people. The risk was assessed. The decision made. End of.

No of course it doesn't automatically mean it will happen and she will hit a child or even lose her rag with one. But whenever there is an element of risk with someone in a position of trust, however slight, that level of risk has to be assessed. It has been assessed and for whatever reasons (that we are not party to) she has been sacked. The decision wasn't to give her additional training which would make people wonder that there may/may not have been previous issues/allegations that has led to this decision so when it may seem harsh to some people, those that are party to the information they have, may be completely justified in reaching their decision.

This is the reality no matter how much you say otherwise I'm afraid. The safety of children always comes first.

Because the school and their partners would have assessed the risk by holding a panel meeting to discuss the risks and assess her suitability. A professional conduct panel assess the risks and determine the outcome because it would have met the threshold.

Of course the transference of risk has been assessed. you say i have very limited experience. I don't. A few meeting not correct. Over 200 that i personally convened and minute took, typed up an action plan (an agreed course of actions) which was sent out within 48hrs with minutes that i typed up from my notes during the meeting going out within a SLA timescale.

I only ever write what i know about from my experience, which by the way wasn't a 'few meetings'. I worked for almost 2 yrs (2 weeks shy) and only left as my position came up for permanancy and was filled by a perm member of staff and i was agency.

On my supervisors request i was asked to show this member of staff how i did my job. So i took her under my wing for weeks before she took my job off me despite reassurance from my boss this wouldn't happen and was not the intention. I then worked in another team but hated it so left.

I would never 'make up' stuff and find your tone very unkind.

Your tone is also very patronising tbh.
I'm withdrawing from this thread now as its obvious my point of view will not be considered and it is just giving certain individuals free rein to criticise me. I couldn't care less if you don't believe what i am saying but find it most strange that you would think i would make something up or try to glorify my skills, neither of which i have.

Gosh, I have stood by and not commented whilst you have pontificated, but I have to say something.

You are saying that she has been assessed as a potential risk against children. I believe that is libel.

It may be that it is simply that the school has decided that she has brought disrepute onto the school. They may not believe she is any risk to children whatsoever.

That is a huge leap, and I simply believe you are wrong to tell people that you have specialist experience in this area, and that she will have been deemed to be a risk to children.

All this and then you accuse PAS of being patronising?

I will report your comment, as I do believe that you, by stating that she has found to be a risk to children, as a fact, is lible.

 

[Birker2020]

Gosh, I have stood by and not commented whilst you have pontificated, but I have to say something.

You are saying that she has been assessed as a potential risk against children. I believe that is libel.

It may be that it is simply that the school has decided that she has brought disrepute onto the school. They may not believe she is any risk to children whatsoever.

That is a huge leap, and I simply believe you are wrong to tell people that you have specialist experience in this area, and that she will have been deemed to be a risk to children.

I did not say she had been assessed as to transference of risk as how the he** would i know? For goidness sake. But this is what usually happens in situations like this. Another one attempting to put words in my mouth or twist what i say.

Libel?? I think not. In the public realm. Me just explaining what happens.

Go make trouble for someone else. This is why I'm withdrawing from this thread as it is turning nasty and vindictive.