Re: Proofs

True

Re: Proofs

And yet, I know of people who have been dismissed/sacked on demonstrably false evidence.

A while ago a friend made a minor mistake and had to resign (under union advice..it's all far to complex to go into). The evidence produced by his employers who felt that this should be referred higher with the aim of a lifetime ban from employment in his field was dismissed during a subsequent external hearing on the grounds that the person who provided them was deemed (after extensive questioning) as not credible.

So he's lost his career on the basis of false evidence.

Re: Proofs

What! People lie? Say it aint so.

Re: Proofs

So, even after ' false evidence ' the person still lost their job?
Have they no cause for an appeal?
This seems totally unfair and could be a case of unfair dismissal?

Re: Proofs

As said, it's complicated. But yes, it's unfair that those who made outrageous allegations which were considered as "evidence" have kept their jobs in spite of their claims being demonstrably false.

Re: Proofs

How many Juries have you sat on?

All the ones I have sat on were not as stupid as you think.

Yes you will get some jury bigot who bullies the other 11 most wont stand up to him/her but some will and come to the right verdict who sees through a good lawyer such as Rumpole.

Re: Proofs

How many Juries have you sat on?

All the ones I have sat on were not as stupid as you think.

Yes you will get some jury bigot who bullies the other 11 most wont stand up to him/her but some will and come to the right verdict who sees through a good lawyer such as Rumpole.

Re: Proofs

That's very true. I suppose a bit of common sense comes into it. When I did service, the accused was found not guilty despite the evidence, because the 'victim' deserved what they got.

Re: Proofs

How is it fair for a headteacher (with his/her own and personal agenda) to be the investigating officer, who then produces a single sided and non-objective case full of innuendos, uncorroborated evidence, lies, missing evidence which might contradict his/her own "claims" and mitigate the accused's actions?

This is presented to a governor panel of 3 who have appointed the head in the first place and are disinclined to make a judgment other than what the head wants, regardless of how absurd the presented "evidence" is.

The appeal panel is made up from another panel of 3 governors who have the added pressure to support the original panel's decision, even if the chair of the original hearing makes an appearance to explain there thinking, which includes further innuendo and downright lies.

Thus the ranks close and the "accused" has no real chance of of ever having a fair hearing and being acquitted and thus loses his job.

Then the case may be sent to the NCTL to consider a prohibition. All of which takes time and leaves the dismissed person with no income nor any means of gaining employment within teaching whilst this continues.

Then the NCTL confirms that it disagrees with the governing panels' conclusions and thus decides to take no further action.

Regardless of all this, the innocent party has, and will continue to have, no realistic chance of ever gaining work in teaching again since any agreed reference will include a one line statement of the reason for dismissal, in spite of it being based on a false assumption, false evidence and a biased and closed shop "judges".

How do I know all this?

Because it happened to me