
Phillipson: Teachers cannot insist on gender-neutral Mx title
Ms Phillipson was pressed further on Thursday on comments she made earlier this week about the right of teachers to make such a request.
The Telegraph reported recently that a primary school in the south-east of England had listed a new teacher, who the newspaper said was male according to their biological sex, as Mx in a list of staff members.
Mx is described as a gender-neutral title for those who do not identify as being of a particular gender or do not wish to be identified by gender.
Speaking on Times Radio, Ms Phillipson said: 'A teacher can, of course, make that request, but you can't insist that it's followed.'
Asked whether she would call someone Mx, Ms Phillipson said: 'I think that's a hypothetical situation. I've never been asked to do that.
'As a matter of principle, on a wider point, I would usually seek to respond to someone in a way that they would prefer, but there is no obligation for people to do that.'
Asked by Nick Ferrari on LBC whether the issue will cause confusion, she said: 'Schools, as employers, have responsibilities for managing this, in that they have a responsibility to ensure that staff are treated with respect, but also that people with a range of viewpoints are also able to express their views and are treated with respect as well.'
Ms Phillipson also said she 'can't put a timescale' on when long-awaited guidance for schools on gender-questioning children will be published.
The Government has previously said it will not be hurried into publishing guidance for schools, amid calls which came after the Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman in April.
Draft guidance for schools and colleges on how best to support pupils has been on hold since Labour entered Government. It was published by the Conservative government in December 2023, and a consultation ended in March last year.
On Thursday Ms Phillipson, who has previously said guidance would be issued later this year, said the priority is getting the guidance right.
She told LBC: 'I think it's more important that we get it right than we rush it, because these are serious and quite sensitive issues about children and young people and their wellbeing.
'I do know that schools are asking for guidance.
'We want to make sure they've got that guidance, but what matters most is that the guidance they get is workable and they find it practical and helpful in responding to what can be quite challenging issues for schools, when they're supporting young people who might be experiencing questions around distress or their wellbeing.'
Julie McCulloch, from the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'We would always welcome greater clarity from the Government about how schools and colleges should respond to specific issues around gender identity, as they have been left over many years to navigate this territory on their own without national guidance.
'In this absence schools have done a very good job at managing sensitive issues, encouraging a culture of respect and consideration among all students and staff, and this will continue to be a guiding principle in how they deal with any matters that arise.
'We look forward to forthcoming government guidance on supporting gender-questioning children.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
British personnel ready to arrive in Ukraine once fighting on hold
Russian President Vladimir Putin has met his US counterpart Donald Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, where they discussed the conflict after more than three years of fighting in eastern Europe but failed to strike a deal. After talking for nearly three hours, they refused to answer questions from reporters, but both made statements, with Mr Trump saying 'some great progress' was made with 'many points' agreed to, and 'very few' remaining. The UK Government earlier this summer backed international efforts to set up a 'Multinational Force Ukraine', a military plan to bolster Ukraine's defences once the conflict eases, in a bid to ward off future Russian aggression. 'Planning has continued on an enduring basis to ensure that a force can deploy in the days following the cessation of hostilities,' an MoD spokesperson said. According to the Government, 'along with securing Ukraine's skies and supporting safer seas, the force is expected to regenerate land forces by providing logistics, armaments, and training expertise'. It 'will strengthen Ukraine's path to peace and stability by supporting the regeneration of Ukraine's own forces', the spokesperson added. Early designs for the Multinational Force Ukraine were originally drafted last month, after military chiefs met in Paris to agree a strategy and co-ordinate plans with the EU, Nato, the US and more than 200 planners. Russian forces invaded Ukraine in February 2022. On the day of negotiations, the Russians are killing as well. And that speaks volumes. Recently, weʼve discussed with the U.S. and Europeans what can truly work. Everyone needs a just end to the war. Ukraine is ready to work as productively as possible to bring the war to an end,… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 15, 2025 Moments before Mr Trump touched down in Anchorage, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote on X that Saturday 'will start early for everyone in Europe' as leaders react to the Alaska summit. 'We continue co-ordinating with our partners in Europe,' Mr Zelensky said, and added: 'Russia must end the war that it itself started and has been dragging out for years. 'The killings must stop. A meeting of leaders is needed – at the very least, Ukraine, America, and the Russian side – and it is precisely in such a format that effective decisions are possible.' When he addressed the press, Mr Putin said he greeted Mr Trump on the tarmac as 'dear neighbour' and added: 'Our countries, though separated by the oceans, are close neighbours.' According to a translation carried by broadcasters, he claimed the 'situation in Ukraine has to do with fundamental threats to our security'. Stood next to Mr Putin in front of the words 'Pursuing Peace', Mr Trump said: 'We haven't quite got there but we've made some headway.' He stressed 'there's no deal until there's a deal' and added: 'I will call up Nato in a little while. 'I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate, and I'll of course call up President Zelensky and tell him about today's meeting.' Concluding their exchange, the US president said: 'We'll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon. 'Thank you very much, Vladimir.' Mr Putin replied: 'Next time, in Moscow.' Mr Trump said: 'That's an interesting one. I'll get a little heat for that one. 'I could see it possibly happening.' Speaking to Fox News before boarding Air Force One to leave Alaska, Mr Trump said 'a lot of points were negotiated' in what he described as 'a very warm meeting'. He said European nations would have some involvement in any deal, but said the emphasis was on Mr Zelensky 'to get it done'. Mr Trump said he expected the Russian and Ukrainian leaders to meet, possibly with him involved. The Kremlin has previously said the two men would only meet when an agreement is ready to be signed. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the talks as 'very positive', according to Russian state news agency RIA Novosti. He said no questions were taken from journalists because Mr Putin and Mr Trump had made 'comprehensive statements'.


North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
British personnel ready to arrive in Ukraine once fighting on hold
Russian President Vladimir Putin has met his US counterpart Donald Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, where they discussed the conflict after more than three years of fighting in eastern Europe but failed to strike a deal. After talking for nearly three hours, they refused to answer questions from reporters, but both made statements, with Mr Trump saying 'some great progress' was made with 'many points' agreed to, and 'very few' remaining. The UK Government earlier this summer backed international efforts to set up a 'Multinational Force Ukraine', a military plan to bolster Ukraine's defences once the conflict eases, in a bid to ward off future Russian aggression. 'Planning has continued on an enduring basis to ensure that a force can deploy in the days following the cessation of hostilities,' an MoD spokesperson said. According to the Government, 'along with securing Ukraine's skies and supporting safer seas, the force is expected to regenerate land forces by providing logistics, armaments, and training expertise'. It 'will strengthen Ukraine's path to peace and stability by supporting the regeneration of Ukraine's own forces', the spokesperson added. Early designs for the Multinational Force Ukraine were originally drafted last month, after military chiefs met in Paris to agree a strategy and co-ordinate plans with the EU, Nato, the US and more than 200 planners. Russian forces invaded Ukraine in February 2022. On the day of negotiations, the Russians are killing as well. And that speaks volumes. Recently, weʼve discussed with the U.S. and Europeans what can truly work. Everyone needs a just end to the war. Ukraine is ready to work as productively as possible to bring the war to an end,… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 15, 2025 Moments before Mr Trump touched down in Anchorage, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote on X that Saturday 'will start early for everyone in Europe' as leaders react to the Alaska summit. 'We continue co-ordinating with our partners in Europe,' Mr Zelensky said, and added: 'Russia must end the war that it itself started and has been dragging out for years. 'The killings must stop. A meeting of leaders is needed – at the very least, Ukraine, America, and the Russian side – and it is precisely in such a format that effective decisions are possible.' When he addressed the press, Mr Putin said he greeted Mr Trump on the tarmac as 'dear neighbour' and added: 'Our countries, though separated by the oceans, are close neighbours.' According to a translation carried by broadcasters, he claimed the 'situation in Ukraine has to do with fundamental threats to our security'. Stood next to Mr Putin in front of the words 'Pursuing Peace', Mr Trump said: 'We haven't quite got there but we've made some headway.' He stressed 'there's no deal until there's a deal' and added: 'I will call up Nato in a little while. 'I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate, and I'll of course call up President Zelensky and tell him about today's meeting.' Concluding their exchange, the US president said: 'We'll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon. 'Thank you very much, Vladimir.' Mr Putin replied: 'Next time, in Moscow.' Mr Trump said: 'That's an interesting one. I'll get a little heat for that one. 'I could see it possibly happening.'

Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly
Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: 'Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, told the PA news agency: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'