Birker2020
Well-Known Member
The issue for me has always been her profession. If she's capable of such a knee jerk reaction to a horse than she's capable of one towards a child if a child irritates her. This is caused a transfer of risk. It is usually assessed by a Position Of Trust Team and someone called a LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer).
If this was brought to their intention they would have risk assessed the circumstances and if they met the threshold would have held a meeting involving the head of the school, the police and any heads of voluntary organisations linked to the person concerned. The LADO chairs the meeting. The person in a position of trust never attends. It's a fact finding meeting where any risk is assessed and a plan of action is agreed upon, whether that is additional training, or loss of job. Usually the school suspends the teacher on full pay until an agreement is reached whether that be in the meeting or sentencing at Court. I used convene the meetings and minute them for a L.A. we used to receive referrals from either children or on behalf of children via NSPCC for example and other agencies, police, members of the public or the person's employer.
An Action Plan within the SLA of 48 hours is issued to the attendees followed by the minutes no more than 5 working days later.
Unless I've missed something the prosecution don't seem to have addressed the risk with her profession other than to sack her which was founded given the circumstances. There was nothing else they could have done.
Unless the risk will be addressed during the trial tomorrow, I expect it will result in her being banned from working with children again or for a considerable period and the DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) will record the findings of the Court so that if a prospective employer applies for her DBS which is mandatory, they will see it on there.
There aren't many of us on here that can say they've never tapped or smacked l a horse but there is a huge difference between a tap on the shoulder and what she was alleged to have done. I've never lost my temper in that way.
It was unfortunate for her that she was filmed and even more unfortunate for her that it escalated in the way it did but as anyone that works with knows there are boundaries and they will know that the way they conduct themselves outside work can have a huge bearing on their job. Furthermore, there is a requirement for teachers and other professions to under go safeguarding training - hopefully the school will gave implemented that, so the teacher knows what is expected of them and the conduct they should maintain outside the school environment.
She is paying a heavy price for misjudging a situation. Simple as that. Nothing more to say.
If this was brought to their intention they would have risk assessed the circumstances and if they met the threshold would have held a meeting involving the head of the school, the police and any heads of voluntary organisations linked to the person concerned. The LADO chairs the meeting. The person in a position of trust never attends. It's a fact finding meeting where any risk is assessed and a plan of action is agreed upon, whether that is additional training, or loss of job. Usually the school suspends the teacher on full pay until an agreement is reached whether that be in the meeting or sentencing at Court. I used convene the meetings and minute them for a L.A. we used to receive referrals from either children or on behalf of children via NSPCC for example and other agencies, police, members of the public or the person's employer.
An Action Plan within the SLA of 48 hours is issued to the attendees followed by the minutes no more than 5 working days later.
Unless I've missed something the prosecution don't seem to have addressed the risk with her profession other than to sack her which was founded given the circumstances. There was nothing else they could have done.
Unless the risk will be addressed during the trial tomorrow, I expect it will result in her being banned from working with children again or for a considerable period and the DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) will record the findings of the Court so that if a prospective employer applies for her DBS which is mandatory, they will see it on there.
There aren't many of us on here that can say they've never tapped or smacked l a horse but there is a huge difference between a tap on the shoulder and what she was alleged to have done. I've never lost my temper in that way.
It was unfortunate for her that she was filmed and even more unfortunate for her that it escalated in the way it did but as anyone that works with knows there are boundaries and they will know that the way they conduct themselves outside work can have a huge bearing on their job. Furthermore, there is a requirement for teachers and other professions to under go safeguarding training - hopefully the school will gave implemented that, so the teacher knows what is expected of them and the conduct they should maintain outside the school environment.
She is paying a heavy price for misjudging a situation. Simple as that. Nothing more to say.
Last edited:
