Parents gather outside Birmingham school to protest against gay teacher

[littlebabyjesus]

... and, after a complaint, the school allowed to continue.

Because that is the implication of the posts about her losing her job.

It's another example of misplaced priorities, imo. First on this thread, it happened with those defending the 'rights' of the demonstrators. Now it is happening with the 'right' of this teaching assistant to promote homophobia. In both cases, it is their promotion of homophobia that needs to be opposed first and foremost. It's clear with whom our solidarity should lie, imo.

She lost her job? Tough shit. Don't be a homophobic arsehole on social media then, fuckwit. If you don't even realise that is homophobia, then you're not fit to teach.

 

[andysays]

I don't have a child at that school. If I did, I might not be happy about my child being taught/mentored by someone who is actively involved in homophobic campaigning.

This is not an argument for someone to lose their job, anymore than saying "if I had a child at the school, I might not be happy about my child being taught/mentored by someone who is actively involved in a homosexual relationship" is an argument for anyone losing their job.

And the fact that you and others apparently can't see this and seem to equate questioning if this person should have been sacked with defending them (and defending their views is the implication) is frankly bizarre.

I'm amazed anyone is defending her, tbh...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is not an argument for someone to lose their job, anymore than saying "if I had a child at the school, I might not be happy about my child being taught/mentored by someone who is actively involved in a homosexual relationship" is an argument for anyone losing their job.

And the fact that you and others apparently can't see this and seem to equate questioning if this person should have been sacked with defending them (and defending their views is the implication) is frankly bizarre.

Defending their right to say this shit without losing their job. There you go.

Fuck me, you're really stretching it to find something to get all angry andy about on this subject. Your first sentence is nonsensical. That's exactly like making an equivalence between objecting to being taught by a black person and objecting to being taught by a racist. Really. Exactly the same. What is it about homophobia that makes it more acceptable.

I actually had to read your post three times to make sure you really were saying something that stupid.

 

[andysays]

Defending their right to say this shit without losing their job. There you go.

Fuck me, you're really stretching it to find something to get all angry andy about on this subject. Your first sentence is nonsensical. That's exactly like making an equivalence between objecting to being taught by a black person and objecting to being taught by a racist. Really. Exactly the same. What is it about homophobia that makes it more acceptable.

I actually had to read your post three times to make sure you really were saying something that stupid.

I'm not defending her views, I'm saying your "if my kids went to that school, I wouldn't want them to be taught by someone like that" argument is shit. Because it is.

If her views were affecting her behaviour in the classroom in a negative way, then that might be an argument, but there is, as far as I have seen, absolutely no evidence presented that they have.

You are simply deciding she deserves to lose her job because she has views which you (and me and almost everyone posting on this thread as it happen) don't like or even find reprehensible, not because you have evidence those views or anything else make her unsuitable for or unable to do her job.

 

[newbie]

This is not an argument for someone to lose their job

if her conduct or views are such that she does not carry out her job with an appropriate fairness and evenhandedness, yes it is, at least potentially.

If her job was digging roads or working in a chicken factory her views wouldn't be an issue for her employers, but how can someone who "did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others" be a fit and proper person to do a job providing pastoral care?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not defending her views, I'm saying your "if my kids went to that school, I wouldn't want them to be taught by someone like that" argument is shit. Because it is.

If her views were affecting her behaviour in the classroom in a negative way, then that might be an argument, but there is, as far as I have seen, absolutely no evidence presented that they have.

You are simply deciding she deserves to lose her job because she has views which you (and me and almost everyone posting on this thread as it happen) don't like or even find reprehensible, not because you have evidence those views or anything else make her unsuitable for or unable to do her job.

I might not want my child to be taught by a person who is actively promoting homophobia. That is the case in point here. You're just making the rest of the argument up in your head.

You should leave this thread for a bit, I think. You're making yourself look like foolish.

 

[andysays]

if her conduct or views are such that she does not carry out her job with an appropriate fairness and evenhandedness, yes it is, at least potentially.

If her job was digging roads or working in a chicken factory her views wouldn't be an issue for her employers, but how can someone who "did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others" be a fit and proper person to do a job providing pastoral care?

The test for whether she does or does not demonstrate an appropriate understanding etc doesn't (or shouldn't) depend on her views about this issue, it depends on her behaviour in her role providing pastoral care.

 

[andysays]

I might not want my child to be taught by a person who is actively promoting homophobia. That is the case in point here. You're just making the rest of the argument up in your head.

You should leave this thread for a bit, I think. You're making yourself look like foolish.

 

[tim]

I might not want my child to be taught by a person who is actively promoting homophobia. That is the case in point here. You're just making the rest of the argument up in your head.

You should leave this thread for a bit, I think. You're making yourself look like foolish.

I wouldn't want my nonexistent kids to be taught by a patronising cunt like you!

 

[newbie]

The test for whether she does or does not demonstrate an appropriate understanding etc doesn't (or shouldn't) depend on her views about this issue, it depends on her behaviour in her role providing pastoral care.

is homophobia somehow different from racism or sexism, or do you reckon all of them are perfectly acceptable views for a pastoral carer?

 

[newbie]

I wouldn't want my nonexistent kids to be taught by a patronising cunt like you!

would you want the kids bullying your nonexistent gay kids to be offerered comfort, care, help, deprogramming by this pastoral carer?

 

[andysays]

is homophobia somehow different from racism or sexism, or do you reckon all of them are perfectly acceptable views for a pastoral carer?

As I keep saying, it doesn't or shouldn't matter what someone's views are, providing they don't adversely affect their behaviour carrying out their role.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I wouldn't want my nonexistent kids to be taught by a patronising cunt like you!

andysays goes all angry and gets everything wrong. You get everything wrong in a more measured way. I'll give you that.

 

[newbie]

As I keep saying, it doesn't or shouldn't matter what someone's views are, providing they don't adversely affect their behaviour carrying out their role.

When the tribunal (if there is one, this might just be kite flying by the CLC) reports we'll perhaps get a more rounded view than that provided by this press release. Until then we have to read between the lines and as I've said, the clear implication is that her behaviour was not acceptable "you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others"

 

[tim]

would you want the kids bullying your nonexistent gay kids to be offerered comfort, care, help, deprogramming by this pastoral carer?

What's your point, caller?

 

[andysays]

When the tribunal (if there is one, this might just be kite flying by the CLC) reports we'll perhaps get a more rounded view than that provided by this press release. Until then we have to read between the lines and as I've said, the clear implication is that her behaviour was not acceptable "you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others"

As I have said all along, if there is evidence that her behaviour while carrying out her role has been compromised by her views, then it's reasonable for some disciplinary action to be taken. But the only reported behaviour is posting nasty stuff on social media, which I don't think should be reason for her to lose her job.

Anyway, I'm not going to express my opinion further on this thread, in case littlebabyjesus decides it makes me unfit to carry out my role and contacts my employer...

 

[newbie]

But the only reported behaviour is posting nasty stuff on social media, which I don't think should be reason for her to lose her job.

The only source for what's been reported is the press release her campaign has issued.

Gloucestershire Live has attempted to contact the school but it is closed for the Easter holidays. Chairman of governors Tony Joslyn said: "I cannot comment."

Are there any jobs that should be forfeit because of offensive posts on SM? Or are posts somehow separate from the real world? Pastoral care of children, and the duty of care that implies, has some specific requirements, surely?

 

[farmerbarleymow]

She may be a dick but I do find this a bit concerning.

The report is light on detail so there could be more to the story, but someone getting sacked because what they share on social media has the potential to damage an employers reputation is not a good thing. I know of cases in the HE sector where people have been singled out by employers for posting stuff and you can image political campaigns organised by staff coming under similar scrutiny.

I agree it appears questionable, based on the detail in the article. The school may be overreacting, but without further information it is difficult to tell. In previous cases 'championed' by Christian Legal Centre there have been a lot more behavioural issues that led to dismissal so it is possible that this is the case here, but we have so little to go on we can't know either way.

Employers do have a legitimate interest in what employees post on social media - if they post it in their real name and associate themselves with where they work that is. Otherwise, it isn't any of their business. But as you say, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that something else is going on here and she is being singled out, and the use of 'potential' reputational damage sounds suspect to me. We may find out more if it goes to ET.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Organisations get away with the "Reputational damage excuse" because of the insouciance of people like you. If there is a problem with her work then she should face the appropriate disciplinary procedure other wise she should have the right to free speech.

Free speech isn't an untrammeled right though, and people have to use common sense.

 

[tim]

Anyway, I'm not going to express my opinion further on this thread, in case

I wouldn't worry to much. Anyway if littlebabyjesus works in British education you could easily mount him by his own pet turd as he lacks the tolerance for faith and people of faith expected in the modern curriculum. Something that could be demonstrated from a screen grab of many of his comments about religion here.


Examples of the understanding and knowledge pupils are expected to learn include:
...

• an acceptance that people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should be accepted and tolerated, and should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour

 

[likesfish]

Thing is her job is offer pastoral support from her fb page its obvious she's homophobic doesn't belive in transpeople both of which rather limit her ability to do her job.

 

[redsquirrel]

She lost her job? Tough shit. Don't be a homophobic arsehole on social media then, fuckwit. If you don't even realise that is homophobia, then you're not fit to teach.

You've been called a transphobe for the opinions you've posted on here.
There are those that maintain that promoting BDS and/or the one state solution is anti-Semitic. I guess you/they aren't fit to teach either?

 

[campanula]

Um, this is quite a tricky issue - when one's values do not line up with the requirements of the job. For example, there is a clear attempt (which does not always work) to ensure that social workers embody a certain set of tolerant values across the entire social spectrum...and if they do not, they can be removed from post or denied a qualification or generally prevented from practicing in a statutory environment. But, as always, it is hard to quantify something as vague as 'social work values' and there is always a need for evidence (which, I fear, can, as part of a larger picture, also include inflammatory posts on social media...but never just on that). So, I guess it would be dependent on what exactly this pastoral worker may have done which has provably resulted in acts which are detrimental to children in their care. There's loads of other stuff too but their is an attempt to deal with the potential conflicts arising from competing sets of tights.

Ooof, have just come back from allotment and waffling but I pressed reply so too late to delete rambling vagueness.

 

[SpineyNorman]

So if my kid gets stick at school when they're "really young," their bullies should be left to carry on thinking that way? What?

Also how would I be stopping other people from living how they want if I think it's OK for schools to acknowledge gay parents? I'm not forcing women to leave their husbands and shack up with a woman against their will. (Religion sometimes does that with the genders changed, though).

At what age is it appropriate to tell kids that it doesn't matter what gender your partner is, in your opinion? It's really not a difficult thing for little kids to understand. I mean I'm glad you would say it's OK but the thing is there's no big explanation needed.

Exactly. In my experience younger kids especially just accept an explanation along the lines of 'you know your mum and dad love each other and share a bed? Well sometimes two men /women love each other and want to do the same.

You don't have to go into the mechanics of intercourse. Every kid knows about man/woman couples but we don't have to talk about putting penises in vaginas for them to understand.

It smacks of double standards to say otherwise and in all honesty makes me suspect the motivation of the person making that argument.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Are you drunk or just trying to cause an argument like a drunk?

You dishonest little shit. It's obvious Sam was responding to the part you deliberately omitted from your post:

.. But really young kids just don't need to know - fine for older kids.

If you don't think younger kids will bully kids over this (usually prompted by their bigot parents) you're even drafter than I thought.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Um, this is quite a tricky issue - when one's values do not line up with the requirements of the job. For example, there is a clear attempt (which does not always work) to ensure that social workers embody a certain set of tolerant values across the entire social spectrum...and if they do not, they can be removed from post or denied a qualification or generally prevented from practicing in a statutory environment. But, as always, it is hard to quantify something as vague as 'social work values' and there is always a need for evidence (which, I fear, can, as part of a larger picture, also include inflammatory posts on social media...but never just on that). So, I guess it would be dependent on what exactly this pastoral worker may have done which has provably resulted in acts which are detrimental to children in their care. There's loads of other stuff too but their is an attempt to deal with the potential conflicts arising from competing sets of tights.

Ooof, have just come back from allotment and waffling but I pressed reply so too late to delete rambling vagueness.

The principle though is that you have to leave your values at the door - that's why they are paying you. Most people can accept that, but sadly some devout people refuse to do so thinking they have an absolute right to be a bigoted cunt. The CLC have a dubious track record of who they have defended, and how many cases they have lost while bleating xtian 'persecution'.

As I said earlier, we don't know the details of the current case bar the CLC press release so the reasons are anyone's guess.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

In these situations there is usually a lot more going on than gets in the news reports - particularly when those news reports are spurred on by comments from pressure groups in the first place who get uncritically quoted - and, I'll be honest, I can't be arsed to investigate further here to determine who is in the right in a situation where I can't do anything and which has no broader implications which I could do anything about either.

 

[spanglechick]

There are some views that are incompatible with holding an influential working role with children.

If someone was posting anti Semitic shit in their free time, or white supremacist, I’d also expect their job with kids to be jeopardised.

 

[Lurdan]

The Christian Concern press release which has successfully set the terms in which this is being reported is here :

Christian school worker fired for raising concerns about sex education - Christian Concern

I see it concludes:

This is the lot who are also supporting the Christian mother campaigning against her child's primary school in Croydon because of a "proud to be me" event, described by Christian Concern as a "Gay Pride" event. This all began last year but the Birmingham demonstrations gave them the opportunity to piggy back with a fresh story in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago. According to that

She is also seeking a five-figure sum in compensation from the governing body of Heavers Farm Primary School in Croydon, south London, because she claims her family has been victimised.

They gave much criticised legal support to the parents of Alfie Evans. And they took up the case of "Bethany" in 2016

The school which ‘Bethany’ attended, and even the social workers who became interested in her case, all acquiesced to her desires to be treated as ‘Gary’, despite her parent’s wishes that she continue to be treated in accordance with her biological sex.

(...)

Nonetheless, the family stood firm, and with the support of Christian Concern and an independent expert counsellor, ‘Bethany’ began receiving treatment for the various physical and mental health difficulties associated with her gender confusion. While the situation is not completely resolved, ‘Bethany’ nonetheless began making excellent progress in settling into her biological sex and coping with her self-harming behaviour.

They are very competent at agenda setting and pushing socially conservative buttons.

I would have thought the involvement of this pack of cunts would be quite sufficient warning in itself to be wary of jumping to conclusions about what the issues at stake here are.

 

[tim]

In these situations there is usually a lot more going on than gets in the news reports - particularly when those news reports are spurred on by comments from pressure groups in the first place who get uncritically quoted - and, I'll be honest, I can't be arsed to investigate further here to determine who is in the right in a situation where I can't do anything and which has no broader implications which I could do anything about either.

Ah, the no smokery argument.