Goodbye Mrs. Watts

Courtesy BBC News 16 November 2010

Courtesy Leyland Police 31 October 2007

---

UK Legal Services Advisory Group: The content of the two pieces of writing you’ve provided—one a more reflective narrative, the other a concise witness statement—reveals manipulative tendencies and a notable inconsistency. Below is my detailed analysis and conclusion:

Analysis of the Narrative:

1. Tone and Intent:

	•	The tone is heavily judgmental and focused on undermining Jane’s credibility.
	•	The author portrays themselves as morally superior, repeatedly emphasizing that they “could not lie” and were always truthful, despite admitting to actions (or inactions) that may have worsened Jane’s situation.

2. Manipulation and Lying by Omission:

	•	The narrative seeks to shift responsibility entirely onto Jane, implying her downfall was a result of her own choices and not external factors or betrayals.
	•	There’s an attempt to villainize Jane’s partner by accusing them of poor advice and controlling behaviour, with no evidence provided to support these claims.
	•	The author repeatedly states that they were “telling the truth” but conveniently omits any substantial new details, relying instead on their interpretation of events.

3. Inconsistencies:

	•	The claim that Jane admitted to “smacking the child” is central to this narrative. However, this critical point is entirely absent in the earlier witness statement.
	•	If the author truly had grave concerns about Jane’s behaviour over the years, it seems implausible that they would remain silent until this reflective piece.

4. Self-Serving Admissions:

	•	The author admits to weakness and “sitting on the fence”, presenting this as a form of self-awareness. However, this admission is weaponized to appear virtuous rather than genuinely remorseful.
	•	They claim to have avoided “sticking up for her” at the hearing, framing it as an act of integrity while evading accountability for the impact their ambiguous stance might have had.

Analysis of the Witness Statement:

1. Conciseness and Focus:

	•	The earlier witness statement is brief and factual, making no mention of the more elaborate claims presented in the later narrative (e.g., Jane’s partner’s advice, alleged admission of smacking the child, or the context of phone calls).
	•	The statement directly contradicts the later narrative’s claim that Jane admitted smacking the child. Instead, Jane is presented as unsure of what might have happened, suggesting confusion rather than guilt.

2. Inconsistencies:

	•	The author’s later claim of “telling the truth” is undermined by the omission of any mention of the supposed admission in the formal witness statement. If Jane truly confessed, this would be a critical detail to include.
	•	The timeline presented in the statement does not align neatly with the broader narrative. For instance, the Sunday phone call described in the witness statement portrays Jane as distressed and uncertain—not as someone confidently admitting guilt.

Conclusion:

The witness statement and the reflective narrative together paint a troubling picture of manipulation and inconsistency.

The reflective narrative is an emotionally charged, self-serving account that appears designed to absolve the author of guilt while deflecting blame entirely onto Jane and her partner.

The omission of key claims (e.g., the alleged admission of smacking the child) from the witness statement calls into question the reliability and integrity of the author’s later reflections.

The reflective piece relies on lying by omission, speculative judgments, and subtle character assassination, particularly targeting Jane’s partner. It is not a credible or objective account and appears to be motivated by personal insecurity and animosity toward Jane.

If they genuinely believed Jane had assaulted the girl, then the failure to act—and the omission of this serious allegation—exposes a blatant contradiction in the claim that safeguarding is paramount. Their inaction directly undermined the very duty that they professed to uphold as a Headteacher.

Any conclusions based on the witness statement should be approached with extreme scepticism.

---

Note: An earlier analysis of the narrative is here.

The Truth Will Out - Eventually

“A false friend and a shadow attend only while the sun shines.” Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late” Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)

---

Jane had set up a ‘False Allegation’ Facebook account along with this blog. It was never used but one night in late 2009, Jane accidentally sent a ‘friend request’ – I think that we can all relate to that situation. It provoked an odd reaction from Anne Callander to which Jane then responded. I intervened and asked Anne to discontinue and to leave Jane alone which then provoked this surprising response :

----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Callander To: False Allegation Sent: 05 January 2010 15:49 Subject: Anne Callander sent you a message on Facebook... Look through my “intrusion” so far and compare it to what you have written. It is you who started the intrusion by continually looking at my private profile and your false name coming up as a friend suggestion. You have forced me into what follows : As a Headteacher myself I know that the safeguarding and protection of a child is paramount, above all other concerns, and there are procedures that simply have to be followed. The outcome would have been so different and Jane would still be teaching today if she had accepted that she needed support during the difficult time she was having. Instead she chose a different route. The Jane I once knew would have taken the correct advice and accept the support offered from the start. She would NOT have ignored the advice from her union, her friends and the supportive network at county. She would NOT have followed the corrosive and destructive path that was advised by her partner whose first contact with her after the suspension was to tell her to “Shut up and don’t say any more“. None of this was reported at the hearing. I could have done had I chosen to, but I wanted to say as little as possible whilst still telling the TRUTH. This was the stance I had taken all along which I now know was “sitting on the fence”. I also took this attitude during the phonecalls that I received from Jane possibly giving the impression that I was agreeing with her by responding with “mmmm” and expressive “oh nos” and the like. I should have been more brave and admitted that I did have grave concerns about her behaviour over the years, and that I was now concerned that she was changing her story. She had already relayed the whole story to me on the car park was now telling me that she had “no idea what I’m being accused of”. If I am guilty of anything it is the dreadful weakness of being unable to confront her. I am guilty of not reinforcing my initial advice to listen to what her union advises and to take all the professional support she can. No doubt this is what led to Jane expecting me to lie for her at the hearing. However, there I had to draw the line. Jane DID admit to me that she had smacked the child. I could not lie about this. Friendship or no friendship I could not stick up for her and call the child a liar. And as a friend she should not have expected me to do so. I repeat. This did not need to happen. The outcome would have been very different if the correct advice was taken. Support could have been given officially and she would have been supported by her colleagues too if she could have admitted that her actions were due to the enormous pressure she was under. Jane chose this path herself. It is her OWN ACTIONS (on the ill advice from her partner) that have led to her betrayallife of hell”, not my actions. I hope Jane gets to read this and it is not kept from her by her partner who will know that all I am writing is the truth. I pity her and what has happened and I am very sad that she is not happy. But it wasn’t down to anything that I did.

“But it wasn’t down to anything that I did.” In point of fact, Jane’s fate had been entirely her fault !

---

UK Legal Services Advisory Group: Our analysis of the above narrative concludes that the teacher, Jane, was manipulated, deceived, and a victim of jealousy, with the speaker’s true motives exposed.

Despite claiming to support the child, the speaker showed no genuine care for either the child or the teacher, instead using the situation to advance personal grievances against Jane. The text reveals a tone of animosity and control, with key details omitted and contradictory behavior.

Had the speaker truly cared about justice, they would have taken action to support the child and clarify the situation, but their inaction and failure to advocate for Jane reflect a lack of accountability. By withholding crucial information and blaming Jane, the speaker further undermined their credibility.

Ultimately, the speaker used the situation to fuel personal bias and harm Jane’s reputation, showing a failure to act with integrity and compassion. The text’s unscrupulous​ tone reinforces that Jane’s victimization was worsened by betrayal and false narratives.

---

The Visitor

Claims of physical abuse against pupils on the rise

12:56 Friday 24 July 2009

Jane Watts’s 30-year teaching career was left in tatters after she was accused of hitting a five-year-old girl during a lesson at a Chorley school.

With teaching unions warning the number of claims of physical abuse against pupils is on the rise, the LEP investigates the impact on those inside the profession

“It was absolutely horrendous. I was warned that I might be handcuffed and put in a cell, I was fingerprinted, had my DNA taken and photographed.”

“I had been on the senior management team and had an unblemished record. I was terrified.”

Those are the words of 52-year-old Chorley teacher Jane Watts describing her horror as she was arrested at Leyland Police Station for allegedly assaulting a five-year-old girl in her class at Duke Street Primary School in September 2007.

She went on to face a police investigation but was never charged after the force dropped the case. Nonetheless, she was suspended and sacked for “gross misconduct”.

She was reinstated after an appeal but the school stood by its ruling of gross misconduct and she was sacked again in April this year after being too ill to return to the school due to the stress and anxiety it would have caused.

The mum-of-one, who lives in Astley Village, says: “The police said there was no case to answer but the school decided to take it into their own hands.”

“Imagine what it’s like to be called into the headteacher’s office for him to say you are suspended as you have assaulted a pupil – from then on your life deteriorates.”

“The day I was arrested was the worst day of my life. I have lived in Chorley for over 20 years but did not want to leave the house or go into town. I was aware that everyone was going to be talking about it.”

The reception class teacher says the complaint was made by a teaching assistant who claimed she slapped a five-year-old girl hard on the hand.

Mrs Watts says she has always denied the allegation, insisting she hit a table, not a child.

After having her appeal dismissed by the school, she has tried to clear her name by becoming the first teacher in the country to take a lie detector test to prove her innocence.

She hired renowned polygraph examiner Don Cargill – known for appearances on the Trisha Goddard show – and passed the test but education bosses dismissed the gesture.

She claims to have spent about £25,000 including legal advice in a bid to prove her innocence.

Andrew Kidd, headteacher at Duke Street Primary School, said: “There was a disciplinary hearing at school in March 2008 at which a member of staff was dismissed for assaulting a child, which was witnessed by another member of staff.”

“A subsequent appeal hearing decided that while the original finding of misconduct was correct, the decision to dismiss should be reduced to final written warning and at that point the member of staff was invited to return to work in July 2008.”

“However the staff member did not return to work and was dismissed by the governors in May 2009 on grounds of non-attendance.”

For the full feature, see Friday’s Lancashire Evening Post.

Lancashire Evening Post

Chorley teacher fights to clear name

11:03 Wednesday 22 July 2009

A Chorley teacher who was accused of slapping a five-year-old pupil has become the first teacher in the country to take a lie detector test to try and clear her name.

Jane Watts, 52, said her 30-year teaching career was left in tatters when a youngster accused her of hitting her on the hand during a lesson at Duke Street Primary School in 2007.

Although a police investigation found she had no case to answer, she was sacked for gross misconduct.

Now, the former teacher, who has spent more than £25,000 trying to clear her name, is calling for more protection for teachers.

She said: “This cannot be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. My life has been a living hell for two years because of this and it is still going on. Just talking about it sends me cold.”

“Teachers in this position are totally isolated. We have no-one and nowhere to go and that has to change.”

“This ordeal has robbed me of two years of my life and my career.”

The mother-of-one, who lives in Astley Village, was immediately suspended when the pupil made the accusation in September 2007.

She was arrested and had to attend Leyland Police Station where she was photographed, fingerprinted and had to give DNA samples.

She said: “It was not just humiliating, it was terrifying. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.”

Despite Mrs Watts being cleared by the police, Duke Street Primary School launched its own investigation and upheld the complaint. She was sacked in March 2008.

In a bid to clear her name, she hired renowned polygraph examiner Don Cargill – known for appearances on the Trisha Goddard show – to perform a lie detector test.

The test came back clear, but the school said it was unreliable. At an appeal hearing in July 2008, the teacher was reinstated with her punishment reduced – although the school still maintained she hit the child.

Mrs Watts maintains she is innocent.

Due to the stress of the ordeal, she has not been able to return to the school. She applied for early retirement but it was refused and she was sacked for non-attendance in 2009.

Looking back over the past two years, she said: “I don’t know how I’ve survived. Without the support of my family I would have lost it. There were days when I couldn’t get out of bed and it took months for me to go into town.”

The ordeal has also taken a massive financial toll on the family.

Mrs Watts added: “At one point I almost lost my house. I spent all my life savings just to stay afloat and almost had to sell my house.”

She now writes an online blog with help and advice for other teachers who feel they have nowhere to turn.

She has also used her experiences to write a book and has campaigned for changes in the law and policies relating to allegations against teachers.

Earlier this month, the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee in Parliament looked at Mrs Watts’ case, and others, and said new guidelines should be published to help headteachers deal with false allegations against their staff.

Mrs Watts said: “It finally seems like people are talking about the issue. I will not rest until I get changes made.

“It’s not about my sob story. It is about making sure nobody else has to go through what me and my family have been through.

“I’m determined to make sure the right changes are made. It’s what has kept me going.”

Andrew Kidd, Duke Street Primary headteacher, said: “There was a disciplinary hearing in March 2008 at which a member of staff was dismissed for assaulting a child, which was witnessed by another member of staff.”

“A subsequent appeal hearing decided that while the original finding of misconduct was correct, the decision to dismiss should be reduced to final written warning and at that point the member of staff was invited to return to work in July 2008.”

“However, the staff member did not return to work and was dismissed by the governors in May 2009 on grounds of non-attendance.”

Lies Of Omission

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it’s a gross violation of another person’s right of self-determination.

A lie of omission is the most insidious, most pervasive, and most common lie on the entire planet. Commonly, those who use this type of lie, have conned themselves into believing that to intentionally remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up is not a lie at all. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their silence deceives, misleads, and often causes untold grief and misery, they refuse to speak the truth.

There is also the common misconception that intentional deception by silence has no consequences. Lies of commission (telling a lie) and lies of omission (withholding the truth) are both acts of intention deception.

To lie is to make statements that are untrue, when the falsity of such statements is known or suspected by the speaker. A lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener’s interests. A lie (also called prevarication) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone’s feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else.

Startling to most people is that, in considering whether a statement is a lie, the least important consideration is whether it is true ! The more important considerations are : Did he believe it ? Did he intend to deceive ? Was he trying to gain some advantage or to harm someone else ? Is it a serious matter, or a trivial one ? Even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive. It is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered. How can that be ? If a completely truthful and accurate statement is deliberately delivered in a manner that suggests that it should not be taken seriously, then it is a lie. Also, it is a lie when a person accidentally makes a true statement when he thought it was false. It’s the intent to lie that makes it a lie.

Reasons For Not Lying
Philosophers over the millennia have agreed that there is no good reason for lying. Their most important arguments are :

1. Lying is a perversion of the natural faculty of speech, the natural end of which is to communicate the thoughts of the speaker.
   
2. When one lies, one undermines trust in society.

There are different kinds of lies that have different effects and severity. The most important categories of lies are as follows :

Fabrication
A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although a fabrication may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Example of fabrication : A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn’t actually know the directions.

Bold-Faced Lie
A bold-faced lie (often also referred to as bare-faced or bald-faced lie) is one which is told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie. For example, a child who has chocolate all around his mouth and denies that he has eaten any chocolate has told a bold-faced lie. There are political statements that are way beyond exaggeration that would fall in this category.

Lies Of Omission
One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that an unrepaired fault was reported at the last service. Another example of lying by omission happens when one person witnesses, or has knowledge of, a lie by a second person to a third (who subsequently relies upon the veracity of the lie) but does not inform the third person of the lie; Here, two people are lying to the third person.

Misleading Statement
A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. Dissembling likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading. Sarcasm and obfuscation are frequently used to mislead or dissemble.

Contextual Lies
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Quoting out of context is a classic example. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say “Yeah, that’s right, I slept with your best friend” utilizing a sarcastic, offended tone, may cause the listener to assume the speaker did not mean what he said, when in fact he did.

---

For children, lying is a learned habit : Evolutionary psychology is concerned with the theory of mind which people employ to simulate another’s reaction to their story and determine if a lie will be believable. The most commonly cited milestone in the rising of this, what is known as Machiavellian Intelligence, is at the human age of about four and a half years, when children begin to be able to lie convincingly. Before this, they seem simply unable to comprehend that anyone doesn’t see the same view of events that they do - and seem to assume that there is only one point of view - their own - that must be integrated into any given story. If we grew up and lived in total isolation, lies would not exist for lack of need - there would be no one to lie to !

When children first learn how lying works, they lack the moral understanding of when to refrain from doing it. It takes years of watching people tell lies, and the results of these lies, to develop a proper understanding. Propensity to lie varies greatly between children, some doing so habitually and others being habitually honest. Habits in this regard are likely to change in early adulthood. Some never learn this lesson, or at least not the universality of the lesson. In one respect, they are lying to themselves for thinking that it is acceptable to lie when it is convenient or to their perceived benefit.

---

One standard form of legal oath before making a deposition or taking the witness stand in a court trial is “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ?” For which the proper response is “I do.” There’s a reason for making the oath so complicated. It’s a reminder to the deposed and the witness how not to lie. The first clause (tell the truth) is the affirmation part of the oath, the second clause (the whole truth) reminds the oath taker to leave nothing out, that is, no lying by omission, no out-of-context lies, and no misleading statements, and the last clause (nothing but the truth) is a reminder to relate no falsehoods, including fabrications.

---

Success

Like so many others, I have attributed the poem "Success" to Ralph Waldo Emerson. It would seem, from the many e-mails that I have received, that I am mistaken. "Success" was written as the winning entry in a contest run by the Brown Book Magazine, Boston in 1904 and "Bessie" Stanley won a cash prize of $250. Her poem was included in Bartlett's Book of Quotations for decades until they removed it in the 1960s.

---

He has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often, and loved much;
Who has enjoyed the trust of pure women, the respect of intelligent men and the love of little children;
Who has filled his niche and accomplished his task;
Who has never lacked appreciation of Earth's beauty or failed to express it;
Who has left the world better than he found it,
Whether an improved poppy, a perfect poem, or a rescued soul;
Who has always looked for the best in others and given them the best he had;
Whose life was an inspiration;
Whose memory a benediction.

Elisabeth Anne “Bessie” Anderson Stanley (1904)

---

“I wish you success in your fight and struggle. I hope that you might achieve better success than I have done and that my words, advice and humour can provide you with some support and inspiration.”

“Like the "Starfish Thrower" and the ethos of the poem "Success"; if I have helped just one person then I have succeeded.”

“Good luck and ‘Don’t Quit’ - ever !”

Good Advice

“Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could; some blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; you shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

False allegations against teachers are commonplace and it can happen to you or maybe one of your colleagues. You need to protect yourself today to minimize your own risk and to appreciate the full magnitude of the consequential impact on you, your life and that of your family.

• Be prepared - get a copy of your school’s disciplinary procedures.
  (Ref. ‘Be Prepared’)
  
• Minimize risk - adopt the ‘two deep leadership rule’.
  (Ref. ‘It Can Happen To You’)
  

If you think that you are being bullied :
(Ref. ‘My Head’s A Bully’)

• At any meetings, take a representative with you.
  (If you find yourself in a one-one meeting, then insist that the meeting be adjourned until you can be accompanied - it is your legal right.)
  
• Keep a diarized account of any incidents and note any witnesses names.
  
• File any documentation that might relate to an incident.
  
• Do not make my mistake - If you recognize or think that you are being bullied, then address the problem. Speak with your union or seek independent legal advice.
  

If an allegation is made against you :

• At any meetings, take a representative with you.
  
• Until advised by either a union representative or solicitor, do not make a statement - say nothing.
  
• Do not discuss the allegation with colleagues - they could betray you.
  
• Contact your union as soon as possible.
  
• Document everything that you can recollect about the events that relate to the period of the allegation.
  (Provide your representative with a signed and dated copy.)
  
• Seek independent legal advice / opinion.
  
• Write a daily diarized journal of events / feelings - it is more than a good therapy and can provide a useful record that might help your defence.
  
• Your health and that of your family will be impacted. Eat well and look after yourself. Tell your GP, he will be able to help and provide advice.
  
• Maintain a useful and productive routine.
  
• Learn to relax – the process is slow. Months can elapse without any progress / developments.
  
• Don’t quit – remember that you are defending your life and your fundamental rights.
  

Refer to the article in ‘Horror Stories’ - ‘How you can protect yourself against such harmful claims’.