The sacked horse hitting ex teacher is going to court

[Birker2020]

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.

Because if there was just one media stating that then you wouldn't particuarly believe them, but there were about 20 media links so it would seem more reasonable to suspect that they are correct.

 

[conniegirl]

Because if there was just one media stating that then you wouldn't particuarly believe them, but there were about 20 media links so it would seem more reasonable to suspect that they are correct.

Not really, the only knowledge is that the employment was terminated. No one knows by whom, however the news rags have all decided to interpret it as her being fired. They will not know that for sure, however it makes for a better story so they will run with it

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Because if there was just one media stating that then you wouldn't particuarly believe them, but there were about 20 media links so it would seem more reasonable to suspect that they are correct.

They often all get their info from the same source. It seems to me that several people have taken the word 'terminate' to mean what you did, without bothering to think about the actual meaning of the word.

Having worked in education for decades, I can be almost certain that the statement put put by the employer had been agreed with the employee's union (almost every teacher in the land is a union member) and was deliberately unclear.

 

[Sandstone1]

That, ultimately, is for the courts to decide.

It is indeed. The only way things will change is to bring things like this to court. While some will think its a over reaction times change and people need to know that losing your temper with a animal is never right. I am not a fan of the Rspca and do agree that there are other serious cases of cruelty that do not get to court. would people have felt the same if it was a dog she kicked and slapped?

 

[paddy555]

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?

I do appreciate that you really really hope she was sacked. If she was sacked surely she would have been dismissed ie ordered to leave/removed from her employment.

Her employment was terminated ie brought to an end. Question is who brought it to an end. Her or the education authority or was there some mutual agreement.

I am sure PAS and the others will have educated you on the term "terminated' haven't read all the posts.

 

[paddy555]

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

we don't know if she was sacked, you keep saying she was but there is no evidence to that effect. There never will be as that is between her and the education trust. Whatever arrangement they came to. I cannot see how you can comment about a transference of risk to kids. What is your evidence? If you don't have any then I think you should stop posting using "sacked" and about risks to children. You keep making a lot of assumptions based on what you would like her to be guilty of.

 

[paddy555]

Because if there was just one media stating that then you wouldn't particuarly believe them, but there were about 20 media links so it would seem more reasonable to suspect that they are correct.

Jeez, let's have trial by media. The verdict is bound to be correct then. One media source, innocent, half a dozen more questionable and 20? Well guilty as sin and string her up.

 

[paddy555]

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?

yes I can't see anyone would want to go back. I just wondered if not guilty then the whole position would change and how it would change. Just musing really
If not guilty we could of course have another thread of several pages deciding if the jury had reached the correct verdict.

 

[Birker2020]

I do appreciate that you really really hope she was sacked. If she was sacked surely she would have been dismissed ie ordered to leave/removed from her employment.

Her employment was terminated ie brought to an end. Question is who brought it to an end. Her or the education authority or was there some mutual agreement.

I am sure PAS and the others will have educated you on the term "terminated' haven't read all the posts.

I have never stated that I really really hoped she was sacked. I do think that the reason why someone in her position may have been could have been because there was a possible transference of risk. I did admit that there was a possibility that she may have put the school into disrepute by her actions although this could be less likely. I don't know, nobody does, we've all speculated on this.

Yes it is correct that termination doesn't necessarily mean on their part, she could have terminated the contract too. BUt I said in my experience when you are terminated as the newspaper articles suggested it normally means you have been sacked or that at least is/was my interpretation.

She was suspended (again newspaper articles say this) and this is usually on full pay pending the outcome of an investigation. As I explained numerous times - if an allegation arises about a member of staff, outside of their work with children, and this may present a risk of harm/risk of children for whom the member of staff is responsible through their employment/volunteering, a POT meeting is usually convened. We don't know if this happened in her case. It may have, it might not have.

A POT meeting is a multi agency meeting without the person of interest being there and they will consider the current allegation in the context of any previous allegations or concerns (not suggesting there were/are any) and consider what support should be provided to the member of staff and others who may be affected and how they will be kept up to date with the progress of the investigation. They will also make recommendations where appropriate regarding suspension, or alternatives to suspension like additional training if this is deemed to be a better alternative.

I never said this had happened to her I just said I had thought that it might. If people wish to interpret what I've said to suit their own agenda then that is fine but like you saying "I know you really, really wish she was sacked" its totally inaccurate.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I have never stated that I really really hoped she was sacked. I do think that the reason why someone in her position may have been could have been because there was a possible transference of risk. I did admit that there was a possibility that she may have put the school into disrepute by her actions although this could be less likely. I don't know, nobody does, we've all speculated on this.

Yes it is correct that termination doesn't necessarily mean on their part, she could have terminated the contract too. BUt I said in my experience when you are terminated as the newspaper articles suggested it normally means you have been sacked or that at least is/was my interpretation.

She was suspended (again newspaper articles say this) and this is usually on full pay pending the outcome of an investigation. As I explained numerous times - if an allegation arises about a member of staff, outside of their work with children, and this may present a risk of harm/risk of children for whom the member of staff is responsible through their employment/volunteering, a POT meeting is usually convened. We don't know if this happened in her case. It may have, it might not have.

A POT meeting is a multi agency meeting without the person of interest being there and they will consider the current allegation in the context of any previous allegations or concerns (not suggesting there were/are any) and consider what support should be provided to the member of staff and others who may be affected and how they will be kept up to date with the progress of the investigation. They will also make recommendations where appropriate regarding suspension, or alternatives to suspension like additional training if this is deemed to be a better alternative.

I never said this had happened to her I just said I had thought that it might. If people wish to interpret what I've said to suit their own agenda then that is fine but like you saying "I know you really, really wish she was sacked" its totally inaccurate.

As explained by a temporary minute taker

 

[YorksG]

She was not "terminated " her employment terminated, there isNothing to say who by. There is no evidence of any safeguarding meeting, or of any "transfer" of risk. That you have repeated,several times, that these things will have happened is erroneous. To then suggest that you were only suggesting that they might have, is disingenuous, imo

 

[Birker2020]

As explained by a temporary minute taker

Wow. What a snob. I'm trying my best. Talking about looking down on soneone.
But I'm not really fit to lick your boots am I Miss High & Mighty?

Love to know why you think your so right and your speculation is more relevant than anyone elses on this forum.

 

[Birker2020]

She was not "terminated " her employment terminated, there isNothing to say who by. There is no evidence of any safeguarding meeting, or of any "transfer" of risk. That you have repeated,several times, that these things will have happened is erroneous. To then suggest that you were only suggesting that they might have, is disingenuous, imo

Thank you.

 

[conniegirl]

Wow. What a snob. I'm trying my best. Talking about looking down on soneone.
But I'm not really fit to lick your boots am I Miss High & Mighty?

Love to know why you think your so right and your speculation is more relevant than anyone elses on this forum.

No, you are commenting from a position where you have a little knowledge, gained second hand. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Other posters who were fully trained on the processes and have been fully active participants for the full processes from start to finish have commented that you are mistaken but you with your note taking gained knowledge have decided you know better.

 

[I'm Dun]

Wow. What a snob. I'm trying my best. Talking about looking down on soneone.
But I'm not really fit to lick your boots am I Miss High & Mighty?

Love to know why you think your so right and your speculation is more relevant than anyone elses on this forum.

And here we go again. Pretty sure that would fall under undignified behavior.

Its really, really boring when the discussion gets rail roaded like this. Could you try and stop it or at least tone it down? People cant even put you on ignore as then nothing makes sense as the comments keep coming.

 

[laura_nash]

Weren't the Colston 4 found not guilty of something that they definitely appeared to have done?

Yes, it's well established in common law that the jury can find not guilty even if they clearly are guilty under the current laws if they feel in this particular case it's wrong to find them guilty. It's why jury trials don't establish precedence.

It used to be more common when laws were much further out of step with reasonableness, eg when the minimum sentence for a starving child stealing a loaf of bread was deportation the jury might find them not guilty even if it was clear they did steal it.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Love to know why you think your so right and your speculation is more relevant than anyone elses on this forum.

Because, as I have posted already on this thread, I have been trained to participate fully in disciplinary processes for teaching and support staff.

Any dismissal for safeguarding reasons falls under the disciplinary process, which, as I have also said before, takes considerably longer than the very short time between the video going viral and the statement being issued.

 

[AmyMay]

Honestly you lot…… ???

 

[DabDab]

Bringing a business into disrepute can be construed as gross misconduct

Yes I know ?. I suspect that is what she was sacked for. Won't be affected by the trial though will it, which is what that post of mine there was talking about.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

If not guilty we could of course have another thread of several pages deciding if the jury had reached the correct verdict.

Not trying to stir up the hornet's nest that this thread has become, another possible subject of much heated discussion on here, IF the teacher's job was terminated by the school and not by herself, if found not guilty on RSPCA charge, would she then have a case for wrongful dismissal against the school that sacked her (IF the school did sack her - or terminate whatever word you want to use)?

Just curious if some of you knowledgeable school discipline/union bods can clarify how that could possibly pan out?

 

[Fred66]

It is indeed. The only way things will change is to bring things like this to court. While some will think its a over reaction times change and people need to know that losing your temper with a animal is never right. I am not a fan of the Rspca and do agree that there are other serious cases of cruelty that do not get to court. would people have felt the same if it was a dog she kicked and slapped?

Yes.

If an investigation showed this was repeated behavior causing injury to the animal and there was an ongoing risk then obviously the answer would be no.

However if there was no other sign of neglect or damage then I would not expect a court case to ensue.

People tend to attach human behavior to animals and it rarely works. Pack animals establish a hierarchy through submission/dominance behavior, in these situations humans need to ensure they are the Alpha otherwise the animal may well try to dominate them and this can be extremely dangerous. Obviously this dominance from the human should not cause injury but should be sufficiently firm to ensure the pecking order is established.

 

[paddy555]

It is indeed. The only way things will change is to bring things like this to court. While some will think its a over reaction times change and people need to know that losing your temper with a animal is never right. I am not a fan of the Rspca and do agree that there are other serious cases of cruelty that do not get to court. would people have felt the same if it was a dog she kicked and slapped?

that is presuming she is found guilty. What if she is found not guilty. I think that must be a credible alternative. I doubt her legal team would be pressing on with this if they thought it was a foregone conclusion. If she is not guilty then to the public it may suggest that sort of behaviour is acceptable and no change is needed.
If they lose it is not going to do the RSPCA any favours. I am not sure how she is going to get a fair trail after the press intrusion so far.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Not trying to stir up the hornet's nest that this thread has become, another possible subject of much heated discussion on here, IF the teacher's job was terminated by the school and not by herself, if found not guilty on RSPCA charge, would she then have a case for wrongful dismissal against the school that sacked her (IF the school did sack her - or terminate whatever word you want to use)?

Just curious if some of you knowledgeable school discipline/union bods can clarify how that could possibly pan out?

The short answer is that it would depend on the wording of the dismissal notice. However I doubt that it would mention cruelty to animals, so probably not directly. If it says by reason of bringing the school into disrepute, she might have a case if found Not Guilty because it wasn't her actions that caused the problem.

She would need to take legal advice, which I'm sure that her union, if she is a member, as most teachers are, would be happy to provide.

But it seems highly unlikely to me, because of the timescales, that she was sacked.

 

[Sandstone1]

Yes.

If an investigation showed this was repeated behavior causing injury to the animal and there was an ongoing risk then obviously the answer would be no.

However if there was no other sign of neglect or damage then I would not expect a court case to ensue.

People tend to attach human behavior to animals and it rarely works. Pack animals establish a hierarchy through submission/dominance behavior, in these situations humans need to ensure they are the Alpha otherwise the animal may well try to dominate them and this can be extremely dangerous. Obviously this dominance from the human should not cause injury but should be sufficiently firm to ensure the pecking order is established.

I am afraid the dominance theory has been disproved and is now very out dated. Try looking up positive reinforcement and learning theory.
Humans do not need to be the "Alpha"
This sort of attitude just shows how much things need to change.

 

[DabDab]

Not trying to stir up the hornet's nest that this thread has become, another possible subject of much heated discussion on here, IF the teacher's job was terminated by the school and not by herself, if found not guilty on RSPCA charge, would she then have a case for wrongful dismissal against the school that sacked her (IF the school did sack her - or terminate whatever word you want to use)?

Just curious if some of you knowledgeable school discipline/union bods can clarify how that could possibly pan out?

Tried to answer this question when Paddy asked it but conniegirl decided to quote an example of gross misconduct at me, so obviously I didn't do a very good job....will try again...

Assuming she was fired for gross misconduct, then it is unlikely that the verdict would have any bearing on the dismissal. They are not related or interconnected in any way really, unless the gross misconduct that the disciplinary investigation found her guilty of is 'criminal acts'. But that seems very unlikely to be the case here.

No idea on safeguarding if it was those grounds that she was dismissed on. But I would think it unlikely that they would reverse a decision like that unless the video was found to be faked or something. I also think it is unlikely that she was dismissed on safeguarding grounds

 

[Sandstone1]

that is presuming she is found guilty. What if she is found not guilty. I think that must be a credible alternative. I doubt her legal team would be pressing on with this if they thought it was a foregone conclusion. If she is not guilty then to the public it may suggest that sort of behaviour is acceptable and no change is needed.
If they lose it is not going to do the RSPCA any favours. I am not sure how she is going to get a fair trail after the press intrusion so far.

Time will tell. I do hope shes found guilty as its time people thought a bit more about how they treat animals.

 

[skinnydipper]

People tend to attach human behavior to animals and it rarely works. Pack animals establish a hierarchy through submission/dominance behavior, in these situations humans need to ensure they are the Alpha otherwise the animal may well try to dominate them and this can be extremely dangerous. Obviously this dominance from the human should not cause injury but should be sufficiently firm to ensure the pecking order is established.

Dominance theory, in the dog world at least, has long since been debunked.

This might interest you: https://equitationscience.com/equit...ng, attempts to,the individual by moving away.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Thank you DabDab and Pearlsasinger, much clearer picture now.

 

[skinnydipper]

People tend to attach human behavior to animals and it rarely works. Pack animals establish a hierarchy through submission/dominance behavior, in these situations humans need to ensure they are the Alpha otherwise the animal may well try to dominate them and this can be extremely dangerous. Obviously this dominance from the human should not cause injury but should be sufficiently firm to ensure the pecking order is established.

You are not seriously suggesting she was training the poor pony when she kicked and punched it?

 

[Sandstone1]

You are not seriously suggesting she was training this poor pony when she kicked and punched it?

Poor pony didnt even do anything wrong. If thats whats classed as training I really do despair.