During the COVID-19 pandemic, I was the only serving U.K. headteacher or school principal (out of over 20,000) to have publicly questioned lockdowns, masking kids and the Covid vaccine rollout to children. Many other headteachers privately agreed with my stance but told me they were too scared to speak out. A culture of censorship and self-censorship appears to have stifled open debate.
I used to feel like I was the golden boy of primary school education after creating an unorthodox curriculum at West Rise Junior School in Eastbourne, East Sussex. Alongside the usual lessons, I provided an engaging rural curriculum that you would never expect in a state school. I leased 120 acres of marshland opposite my school, the site of a former Bronze Age settlement. The children learned how to build fires and how to whittle wood with knives to make arrows. They learned to safely shoot 4:10 shotguns and how to skin rabbits and pluck pigeons. They tended beehives, sheep and even looked after our own herd of water buffalo.
I won the admiration of my peers, and in 2015, the Times Educational Supplement Primary School of the Year award. Dame Judith Hackitt, Chairman of the Health and Safety Executive, said more school headteachers should be following my example. This was because I was giving my pupils real, hands-on educational experiences.
I enjoyed very positive relationships with my staff and my employer but everything changed after I began to question the Government’s pandemic response and its impact on children.
Concerned about the impact of lockdowns, masking kids and the Covid vaccine rollout to children, I used my social media channels to express my lawful opinions. This was to inspire discussion and debate.
Regarding the Covid vaccines for children, my opinion has always been that we shouldn’t give kids a medical intervention unless there is a clear benefit and a proven safety record. Indeed, before 2020, it would have been considered extreme to have argued the opposite view.
For context, I have always focused on the same key points when publicly expressing my opinion about the Covid vaccines for children:
- Children are at extremely low risk of serious illness from Covid.
- The Covid vaccines pose known risks and have no long-term safety data.
- A child can still catch and spread Covid when vaccinated against the virus.
- In my personal opinion, the risks from the Covid vaccines outweigh any possible benefit.
Despite the above amounting to lawful free speech, as well as being factually accurate, it triggered some individuals enough to attack me for expressing this view.
My employer (East Sussex County Council) commissioned three investigations into me for publicly sharing my opinion about the rollout to children. This is despite me expressing my lawful views in a moderate and calm manner and within my own time.
The last investigation into me followed a whistleblowing complaint under Prevent. Prevent is part of the U.K. Government’s overall counter-terrorism strategy. I was also reported to the Department for Education’s Counter Extremism Division. This is because questioning Government policy on Covid was regarded as a form of extremism by the complainants.
I was cleared of all allegations of wrongdoing in relation to my right to lawful free speech following each of the independent investigations. I was also cleared by the Counter Extremism Division. This is because I have a right to lawful free speech within the U.K. Nonetheless, my employer said that I could be repeatedly investigated in the future if the same complaint was raised. This was clearly a deliberate attempt to silence ‘disapproved of views’ using the complaints procedure.
I previously enjoyed a highly successful, 20 year career as a headteacher. I was consistently praised by Ofsted and had extensive, very positive national media coverage for my educational ethos. Even though my education initiatives were potentially controversial, I never received a single complaint. Yet questioning the Government’s pandemic response cast me as an extremist in the eyes of some individuals, ultimately ending my much-loved career.
A freedom of information request which I made to the U.K. Government’s Department for Culture Media and Sports (DCMS) revealed that my social media posts had been monitored by the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU). This played a significant role in the attacks on my lawful free speech.
Instead of monitoring actual terrorists, the U.K.’s shadowy disinformation units, in liaison with the intelligence agencies and Big Tech, monitored people like me. My ‘offence’ on one occasion was saying that “Children have wonderful immune systems” and “As a headteacher, I have a legal duty to safeguard children against harm”.
At the same time, psychological nudge units were employed by the U.K. Government to encourage the public to view anyone who questioned the Government as an extremist.
Members of the public, who had been evangelised by the now debunked ‘safe and effective’ mantra set about hunting down those who questioned Government pandemic policy – often reporting them to their employers and unleashing what I have described as Britain’s unofficial social credit system. In other words, seeking to punish them via the complaints process and cancel culture.
This Chinese Communist-style censorship and self-censorship by vast numbers of the population allowed ever more extreme policies to go unchallenged and unchecked. For example, the Government announcing that a child would not require parental consent to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Or the Government ignoring the advice of the JCVI and pushing ahead with the rollout for children.
Didn’t the 77th Brigade and the like have any real terrorists and extremists to go after?
My experience has compelled me to take my employer to the employment tribunal. My claims include discrimination, harassment, preventing me from making a protected disclosure and constructive dismissal. Five days have now been allocated by a court for a hearing in November 2024.
Lawful free speech is the foundation of a healthy democracy. We should encourage debate and lawful free speech on all matters. Particularly when it comes to safeguarding children against harm. The Covid pandemic appears to have hindered open debate and people now self-censor out of fear of reprisals.
My court case is therefore one which I am fighting for everyone within the workplace, regardless of their background, belief or views. Employers should not be emboldened to silence the lawful opinions of those they disagree with.
I have brought my claim in the employment tribunal with the support of the Free Speech Union and leading civil liberties barrister Paul Diamond. Paul was the barrister in the famous ‘British Airways Cross’ case and other high profile cases.
I have also enjoyed the support of the Telegraph on their Planet Normal podcast (from 29 minutes), with Allison Pearson and Liam Hannigan recently getting behind me.
This legal battle raises substantive issues of freedom of speech and of the state suppressing opposing views – something which we should all be concerned about and actively resisting.
If you would like to support my case, please go to the Democracy 3.0 website, navigate to ‘campaigns’ and click on ‘A Legal Battle for Free Speech‘.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Donated.
I will say I don’t agree with having children learn to shoot, but 100% behind you re free speech, masks, vaccinations and, in general, your educational ethos. Very best wishes.
When I was a lad we lived close to some woodland where kids would go to play. One older lad (maybe 9 years old) got given an air rifle and used it to terrorise us younger kids. He should have been taught how to use the damn thing safely rather than being given it and allowed to wander around taking potshots at targets.
There’s a trend in ‘Forest School’ teaching where even quite young kids are shown how and then allowed to build dens and chop up wood to make fires safely – under supervision, of course. My daughter is a proponent and does a little of this with her local infants’ school/nursery. Not guns, obvs.
“build dens and chop up wood to make fires”
When we were youngsters this was called ‘going out to play.’
Safety was arrived at by trial and error. If we got hurt – tough. Don’t do that again.
No adults permitted.
At the Air cadets around 1991 they had the old 303 Rifles that we had to strip and they would time us.
Yes we had 303s in the CCF (Combined Cadet Force) in the 1960s. We were even allowed to fire Bren guns on CCF camp at Fringringhoe ranges near Colchester. Great fun although being left handed is not recommended when firing a Bren.
Hear Hear H
I was taught how to shoot at school – target shooting that is – and it was a fun and useful activity. It taught us about how to actually hold and load a gun properly. I also had an air rifle as did many young teens. We were basically trusted and taught to be responsible. It serves a child well to be trusted and to have responsibility.
I had a .177 air rifle as a teenager and used it to take pot-shots at the git=rl next door. However I was using grains of corn instead of lead pellets and she enjoyed the game, obligingly running up and down her garden to give me a moving target.
No children were injured and a lot of fun was had.
I also had the Diablo & Black Widow latex catapult. I did used it on another kids leg after a disagreement, by the time he got to the end of my drive, he fell down, ah the good old days.
I had the old BSA Meteor Airgun 22. The BSA Cadet was good too.
Absolutely
Around 13 i would walk from my village to the woods and shoot Pigeons, Crows, Rabbits etc.I had an Air Gun too. I always kept the 12 bore in the sling until out of the village knowing who the curtain twitchers were. Good old days that makes a man out of you.
What on earth could be wrong with children being taught how to shoot?
This country has a problem with numbers of deer that, if not culled, then die a lingering death from starvation in old age.
Foxes, in the countryside, make it difficult for smallholders, some of the poorest in the land, to keep poultry now that hunting is restricted.
We also have a shooting team participating in international target shooting competitions.
The best soldiers learn familiarity with rifles, marksmanship, at a young age and are a great deal more proficient, safe, as a consequence than those who have not.
Urban foxes as well. No shortage of them where I live. I’ve even seen fox cubs out during daylight next to my allotment plot.
Maybe getting the rifle out for foxes in Finchley is just a little too hazardous!
Plenty of Urban Gulls around Hereford, they are entertaining though and always try to leave them some bread.
You need a proper chicken pen made of solid wood that they can’t dig under. A mate of Toby would say leave them to the Hunt.
The father of a friend of mine, a hunting man, when out shooting, if a fox ran through the line of guns, would simply raise his cap to it….
I have tried the same but find that the keeper always then sends you to your peg through thick and boggy cover on the next drive……
Some of those children, as were, might come to appreciate how to handle a gun in the coming years.
I wish I had some proficiency in guns. Seems to me we are going to need it.
Although your list of key points is aimed at children’s health, points 2 & 3 are equally true for all age groups. 2 & 4 are complementary, even if there was no evidence of known injuries, as one cannot assess the risks in the absence of proper trial results on account of Emergency Use Authorization only. From a personal position, I agree with 4 and have never supported it’s use, even though some friends and relatives did.
Your experience shows that we have all been subject to egregious behaviour by groups of politicians and their acolytes in the medical trade. It appears that many senior employees in education and healthcare in general have avoided saying too much, so as to save their jobs; we’ll see.
It is not generally known but there is a codicil to the story of the boy who exclaimed that the King was naked and not wearing any clothes.
After he had made his observation a member of the king’s entourage had a quick word with a couple of senior soldiers, ruffians both and singularly heartless and unsympathetic gentlemen, veterans of many disgraceful wars. They quickly made their way to the boy and one seized him by his shirt front, “What do you see, boy?” The boy answered defiantly, “The king is naked – anyone can see that”. This brought a swift clip around his ear which made his head ring. “Listen to me, you little piece of sh it – the king is clothed in the finest raiment and unless you can see it in the next five seconds I’m going to beat you senseless. Do you understand?” The boy hesitated, drew breath then looked into the soldier’s pitiless eyes …
I applaud your courage Mr. Fairclough and will willingly donate to the fund.
Regrettably, symptomatic of what’s going on in UK from Sunak downwards. A Fishy rots from the head and all that. ps It’s Liam Halligan.
This is the country we’re now living in. Donated.
A classic case of the system rooting out anyone who isn’t a Thunberg drum thumping commie.
It raises a lot more issues than that.
It brings to question the entire basis of our society. There is an illusion of freedom and democracy which can be sustained as long as the state isn’t seriously challenged.
The moment the state apparatus perceives a challenge, it is brutal and savage and your so called freedoms evaporate.
Basically you are free if you don’t challenge authority. So, we’re not free at all.
We aren’t really “free” while working for XYZ, if we fall foul of the Human Remains department. Spot the coercion in use to carry out this or that, ostensibly on the basis of health & safety, or the commercial interests of XYZ etc. A lot might depend on what is in the contract agreed between one & the organisation involved.
The moment the state apparatus perceives a challenge, it is brutal and savage and your so called freedoms evaporate.
Basically you are free if you don’t challenge authority. So, we’re not free at all.
I suggest to modify this a little: You’re free to do anything those in power don’t care about because they believe (whether or not this belief is correct doesn’t matter) that what you’re doing is irrelevant. Eg, I’m free to state that Such-and-such a government minister is a complete duckhead! because this kind of ranting, while punishable in former times or other political systems, absolutely doesn’t matter. I may (again) go to a pub and discuss politics freely with other people (In the UK. In Germany¸ that’s a rather different affair.) because that’s just people talking while drinking beer, they’re always doing this and it also doesn’t matter.
With COVID, everything suddenly changed. People were mainly regarded as vectors for dangerous viruses which could infect other people and ultimatively, collapse the health system if not carefully managed. Hence, suddenly, everything anyone did in company mattered, not because of what he did but because of the viruses which could spread as a side effect. Eh voilà — everything (or most of everything for most people) was swiftly prohibited.
We’re mostly free because our rulers don’t think we’re that important, not because of any inherent rights we are said to possess.
This man is a hero and we need more like him. The authorities don’t like people who can think for themselves. I wish more headteachers were like him and then we would have children who learned about the land and how to be responsible for animals and guns. We don’t need our children to be frightened and always looking to authority but to be bold, responsible, caring, and engaged. The fact that he was of interest to the counter-terrorism group is simply ridiculous. It seems anyone with flair and initiative, who inspire children, who have the children’s best interests at heart has to be broken on the wheel.
Broken at the wheel was a hideous torture. Multiple bones broken and the victim’s mangled limbs wrapped among the spokes of a cart wheel. State sponsored of course.
Much easier and less overt is to destroy the man’s career. State sponsored of course.
Another device that would send a chill down the spine with just a mention (can’t remember the name) but it was a device that was attached to you with a helmet with spikes into your eyes. So basically the last thing you see is a helmet closing into your eyes and you are left to die, lovely!
Iron maiden
Great guy, well worth supporting. A minor moan: when I donated I had a surcharge imposed without my permission by the collection agency. This feels like really sharp practice. I get fed up with requests for largish service fees from crowdfunders but this is the first time I’ve been surcharged unknowingly. Anyone else had that experience? I’ve complained but got no reply. It does put me off giving via third parties.
The writer refers to his lawful opinions and lawful views. So can one hold unlawful opinions or views? I can accept that public expression of certain opinions or views may be unlawful but how can merely holding those opinions or views in itself be unlawful?