The sacked horse hitting ex teacher is going to court

Status
Not open for further replies.

DabDab

Ah mud, splendid
Joined
6 May 2013
Messages
12,816
Visit site
what will happen if she is found not guilty in crown court? If she was sacked (and we don't know if she was) could she be reinstated if she wished?

Depends on the disciplinary reason that she was fired on the back of (if she was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct). Breaking the law is a type of gross misconduct but I can't imagine that's what this lady was dismissed for because how could they reasonably conclude that her conduct was illegal in advance of a trial? Any other type of gross misconduct would not be examined or effected by this trial I wouldn't have thought.
 

conniegirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 November 2004
Messages
9,093
Visit site
Depends on the disciplinary reason that she was fired on the back of (if she was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct). Breaking the law is a type of gross misconduct but I can't imagine that's what this lady was dismissed for because how could they reasonably conclude that her conduct was illegal in advance of a trial? Any other type of gross misconduct would not be examined or effected by this trial I wouldn't have thought.
Bringing a business into disrepute can be construed as gross misconduct
 

Pearlsacarolsinger

Up in the clouds
Joined
20 February 2009
Messages
46,960
Location
W. Yorks
Visit site
what will happen if she is found not guilty in crown court? If she was sacked (and we don't know if she was) could she be reinstated if she wished?


If she was sacked, I would imagine that she would take the Multi-Academy Trust to an Employment Tribunal. Re-instatement is highly unusual, the most likely recompense is financial.
And who would want to go back?
 
Last edited:

Birker2020

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 January 2021
Messages
10,549
Location
West Mids
Visit site
what will happen if she is found not guilty in crown court? If she was sacked (and we don't know if she was) could she be reinstated if she wished?
Hi Paddy 555, I am confused at why you have doubt that she was sacked when there are about 50 media links stating that "Sarah Moulds, 37, has been sacked from her position at the Mowbray Education Trust in Melton Mowbray"

In a statement on its website, Paul Maddox, chief operating officer of Mowbray Education Trust, confirmed “that Sarah Moulds' employment with the Trust has been terminated.

Terminated means sacked, its just a play on words, surely?
 

FestiveG

Over the hill and far awa
Joined
14 September 2006
Messages
16,216
Location
West Yorkshire
Visit site
i don't understand why there is doubt that she was sacked when there are about 50 media links stating that "Sarah Moulds, 37, has been sacked from her position at the Mowbray Education Trust in Melton Mowbray"

In a statement on its website, Paul Maddox, chief operating officer of Mowbray Education Trust, confirmed “that Sarah Moulds' employment with the Trust has been terminated.

Terminated means sacked, its just a play on words.
Terminated means ended, that could be because she was sacked, or it could be because she chose to leave.
 

Pearlsacarolsinger

Up in the clouds
Joined
20 February 2009
Messages
46,960
Location
W. Yorks
Visit site
i don't understand why there is doubt that she was sacked when there are about 50 media links stating that "Sarah Moulds, 37, has been sacked from her position at the Mowbray Education Trust in Melton Mowbray"

In a statement on its website, Paul Maddox, chief operating officer of Mowbray Education Trust, confirmed “that Sarah Moulds' employment with the Trust has been terminated.

Terminated means sacked, its just a play on words.


Terminated means 'ended'. Nowhere does the COO of MET make it clear who ended the employment.
 

Birker2020

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 January 2021
Messages
10,549
Location
West Mids
Visit site
If she was sacked, I would imagine that she would take the Multi-Academy Trust to an Employment Tribunal. Re-instatement is highly unusual, the most likely recompense is financial.
And who would want to go back?
I don't understand why she would think she has a case though. If she was sacked because they felt there was a transference of risk because she works with school children then I would have thought that viewpoint would still be upheld. Unless the way she was fired was incorrect in someway, some procedure wasn't followed correctly or something.

I can guarantee she won't be reinstated. - My viewpoint
 

AmyMay

Situation normal
Joined
1 July 2004
Messages
66,617
Location
South
Visit site
I don't understand why she would think she has a case though. If she was sacked because they felt there was a transference of risk because she works with school children then I would have thought that viewpoint would still be upheld. Unless the way she was fired was incorrect in someway, some procedure wasn't followed correctly or something.

I can guarantee she won't be reinstated.

We have no idea why her contract was terminated.

However if you felt you’d been unjustly sacked (especially if found not guilty in court of the offence that may have led to your contract being terminated) wouldn’t you fight it?

I would.
 

FestiveG

Over the hill and far awa
Joined
14 September 2006
Messages
16,216
Location
West Yorkshire
Visit site

conniegirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 November 2004
Messages
9,093
Visit site
https://www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/what-does-terminated-mean
It appears it can be on both sides but I've only ever heard it used as an employee being terminated, i.e. sacked/fired.
Not always, as a great many HR bods on here will tell you. Terminated just means ended. If the employer ends it then it could be being sacked or being made redundant. If the employee ends it, it just means the resigned.

her employer is not allowed to tell anyone which eithet
 

Birker2020

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 January 2021
Messages
10,549
Location
West Mids
Visit site
We have no idea why her contract was terminated.

However if you felt you’d been unjustly sacked (especially if found not guilty in court of the offence that may have led to your contract being terminated) wouldn’t you fight it?

I would.
If you are a teacher you would know that what you had done was wrong, that it would/could possibly lead to this outcome. If you are a teacher you have to be very careful what you do outside work. All teachers should know this.
 

Birker2020

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 January 2021
Messages
10,549
Location
West Mids
Visit site
There is a subtle difference, the employer has not said Who terminated her employment, I don't understand why you have trouble with this concept.
I edited and changed my post (before you hang me again). :D
I put a smiley face on in case I'm accused of acting

a) in a very undignified manner
b) told that the internet is not the place to be unpleasant and then try to take the moral upper hand....
 

AmyMay

Situation normal
Joined
1 July 2004
Messages
66,617
Location
South
Visit site
If you are a teacher you would know that what you had done was wrong, that it would/could possibly lead to this outcome. If you are a teacher you have to be very careful what you do outside work. All teachers should know this.

Well, yes. But she clearly thinks she’s done nothing wrong, otherwise she wouldn’t be pushing for trial by jury.
 

Birker2020

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 January 2021
Messages
10,549
Location
West Mids
Visit site
May I suggest that you don't keep stating as fact, things which are not correct and then perhaps people won't keep correcting you?
Oh dear here we go again.... :rolleyes:
I actually said "It appears it can be on both sides but I've (that's me) only ever heard it used as an employee being terminated, i.e. sacked/fired".

That wasn't stating fact.
 

Sandstone1

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 July 2010
Messages
8,177
Visit site
I dont see how she can be found not guilty as clearly she did hit and kick the pony. If any of the jury have previous bad experience of the Rspca they should declare it as a jury should be completely impartial. Thats the point!
 

AmyMay

Situation normal
Joined
1 July 2004
Messages
66,617
Location
South
Visit site
I dont see how she can be found not guilty as clearly she did hit and kick the pony. If any of the jury have previous bad experience of the Rspca they should declare it as a jury should be completely impartial. Thats the point!

She could argue that she was strongly reprimanding an out of control animal, rather than participating in animal cruelty.
 

cauda equina

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 February 2014
Messages
9,929
Visit site
I dont see how she can be found not guilty as clearly she did hit and kick the pony. If any of the jury have previous bad experience of the Rspca they should declare it as a jury should be completely impartial. Thats the point!
Weren't the Colston 4 found not guilty of something that they definitely appeared to have done?
 

Birker2020

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 January 2021
Messages
10,549
Location
West Mids
Visit site
Every main stream media source including the BBC, ITV, Sky news, The Guardian, The Independent plus the usual more excitable tabloids reported that SM had been sacked.

Of course they might all be wrong...
Exactly. That is what I proved when I included all the links to the media.
 

Sandstone1

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 July 2010
Messages
8,177
Visit site
She could argue that she was strongly reprimanding an out of control animal, rather than participating in animal cruelty.
Then she would be lying. The pony was hardly out of control and even if it was the way she reacted would hardly have helped. It was sheer temper and anyone that thinks otherwise needs to take a good look at the way they treat animals.
 

Birker2020

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 January 2021
Messages
10,549
Location
West Mids
Visit site
I just hope you and PAS who think someone like this has done nothing wrong aren't teachers. That's all I can say because the way you have defended the actions of someone like this teacher really would make me worried that you can fail to recognise exactly what someone like that has done wrong.

Also that you may have also failed to recognise the possible risk that someone that abuses animals could pose to children in a child care setting should such a person lose her rag.
 

windand rain

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 November 2012
Messages
8,517
Visit site
It is also up to the courts to decide if she used unacceptaptable force the defendant may claim and provide evidence that it was not unacceptable force and wouldn't have much trouble finding it. The other reason for choosing trial by jury is the media trial will have prejudiced a fair trial which is obviously easily proven too. A foolish and unneccesary trial at great expense to the people who donate to the RSPCA. I do not condone her actions but don't think she deserves the vitriol
 

Pearlsacarolsinger

Up in the clouds
Joined
20 February 2009
Messages
46,960
Location
W. Yorks
Visit site
Every main stream media source including the BBC, ITV, Sky news, The Guardian, The Independent plus the usual more excitable tabloids reported that SM had been sacked.

Of course they might all be wrong...


Indeed they could be, nobody knows. The only statement from either side, so far as I am aware was the one by the COO of the Mullti Academy Trust, whichclearly said that the employment had been terminated. It did not say by whom. It would be a very foolish employer who did state that an employee had been sacked unless it was as a result of a court case.
I have no idea why people insist on assuming that the media
a) always tell the truth
b) have inside info beyond the known facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top