Parents gather outside Birmingham school to protest against gay teacher
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
andysays
Love and solidarity
So are you actually doing anything substantive about this particular issue, the one you've repeatedly complained that people should be protesting or otherwise doing something about?
I appreciate that there are reasons why you (along with many others) can't be there in Birmingham to join a protest in person, but if this or any other issue is so important, there are surely other significant things you could be doing.
Simply complaining about lack of protest from others, which appears to be pretty much all you do here, just seems to me like an utter waste of time and energy
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Yeah, they are having a problem because they patently hate gay people and constantly throw homophobic insults at e.g. Owen Jones. There have been a few things slung about but they're pretty half-hearted.
not even worth bothering with, this one
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
A pastoral assistant sacked for posting stuff against No Outsiders on social media. It's no surprise to see that the Christian Legal Centre is mentioned.
School assistant loses job over petition against LGBT teaching
School assistant loses job over petition against LGBT teaching
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
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.
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.
Last edited:
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Regardless of the group coming to her defence, do you think it is acceptable to sack her for what she posted rather than anything she did?
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
So you don't think that should be allowed?
I fucking do, isn't that what a good chunk of trade union work is?
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Perhaps you should read the article, she was complaining about materials used in her child's primary school. She worked in a secondary school. This would seem to be an employer spying on her social media use, and sacking her for it, that doesn't seem acceptable to me.
Anyway what's wrong in principle against complaining on or off-line about your employer?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Exactly.
Starting a petition criticising your employer for taking Saudi money - oh sorry that has the potential to damage our reputation, off you go.
Last edited:
newbie
undisambiguated
This is going to raise the same sort of issues as the gay bakery case. Her 'right' to campaign, or to free speech, against the rights of pupils she works with to an education free of stigma or inappropriate god bothering.
That is not about damage to the schools reputation.
We have been told about her facebook posts and her removing her innocent wonderfully created children from the No Outsiders lessons. What we've not (yet?) been told about is her attitude to and treatment of gay or questioning children at the school she worked at.
That is not about damage to the schools reputation.
We have been told about her facebook posts and her removing her innocent wonderfully created children from the No Outsiders lessons. What we've not (yet?) been told about is her attitude to and treatment of gay or questioning children at the school she worked at.
newbie
undisambiguated
which is an unacceptable attitude for someone employed as a 'pastoral assistant' which the TES says needs "the skills and knowledge to provide effective pastoral care and that covers both academic attainment and developing pupils’ ability to become good citizens".
I guess we all have different ideas of what a good citizen is, but mine, at least, doesn't involve wonderfully created children or Christian views on sex education.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
“We are concerned that you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others and to role model such behaviour.”
Mine doesn't include people who use ''role model'' as a verb
newbie
undisambiguated
True enough.“We are concerned that you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others and to role model such behaviour.”
Mine doesn't include people who use ''role model'' as a verb
What's the appropriate sanction?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ugh. Reminds me of some the worst things I hated about school.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
newbie
undisambiguated
you don't want a job then?
Describing the role without sounding icky is hard but there are children who need help along those lines.
I'm still more than a little worried about teaching very young children much to do with any sexual relationships, and this is down to which group's feelings you repress.
Whomever wins, one group has to give up their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in favour of the other.
My natural thought is very live and let live, so I'm likely to fall down on the parents' side.
Whomever wins, one group has to give up their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in favour of the other.
My natural thought is very live and let live, so I'm likely to fall down on the parents' side.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
your natural thought is ignorance is bliss
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Yeah but we already knew you were a dodgy cunt.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
The school claim it is about reputational damage not about her relationship with students. So that isn't the issue, making it so is witch-hunting. The bakers refused to bake a cake for a gay event, so that is not the same either.
newbie
undisambiguated
It's not the same, but it throws up similar conflicting ideas about rights.
The only direct quote in the article about why she was sacked is the one I gave, which is about respect and tolerance, which very much concerns her pastoral relationship with students.
As to the reputation of the school, would you, as a parent, choose a school for your child which, despite complaints, condones a staff member posting that respect, tolerance and understanding amounts to brainwashing? Or would you feel that that's liable to lead to an environment where there's no pastoral concern about, or possibly active endorsement of, those who tell their peers that god doesn't approve of their sexuality or preferred gender? The reputation and atmosphere of the whole school, and of the staff and parents who are involved with it, can be affected by a staff member campaigning in the way she was, potentially to the point that one set of parents shun it and another set actively seek it out. The school management and the rest of the staff may not think that's such a great idea. Reputation matters.
Of course, her job is important. I'd ordinarily suggest she talks to the appropriate union, but they're quoted as being "in favour of a motion to lobby government to strengthen RSE guidance and make teaching about LGBT relationships compulsory at all stages of the curriculum." She, meanwhile, want to stop books about inclusivity being shown to children.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
I'm not bothered about her rights. I am bothered about employers attacking employees (even when those employees hold objectionable views).
There are any number of campaigns that I support that would damage the reputation of my and other employers. Fuck their reputations.
There are any number of campaigns that I support that would damage the reputation of my and other employers. Fuck their reputations.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
I don’t like the wording, but given how much disciplinary actions by organisations is done patently for reasons of reputation management, and given how vile this ‘pastoral assistant’ appears to be, I really can’t get too worked up about the action taken against her.
“Please sign this petition, they have already started to brainwash our innocent wonderfully created children and it’s happening in our local primary school now.”
Oh and that JudyBeth character who she was promoting is vile
“Please sign this petition, they have already started to brainwash our innocent wonderfully created children and it’s happening in our local primary school now.”
Oh and that JudyBeth character who she was promoting is vile
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
No one has the ‘right’ to have access to children or ‘vulnerable’ adults. You want to work/volunteer in such roles it’s on you to demonstrate your fit to do so. She patently isn’t.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Her objectionable views directly relate to her work, though. And as MiB says, she doesn't just hold these views, she's trying to push them in the form of petitions.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
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.
andysays
Love and solidarity
We may find her views objectionable (and I do, to be clear) but for someone's employer to be taking action for expressing those views outside of work is at least potentially problematic.
As far as I have read, she hasn't expressed her objectionable views at work, nor has her behaviour at work been such that her employers have grounds for disciplining her. If I've missed something, I'm happy to be corrected.
It does appear to set a dangerous precedent, in terms of allowing an employer to discipline on the grounds of any views which the employer might find objectionable, even if we wouldn't find them so.
Similar threads
