Mr Samuel Everett

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Samuel Everett

Teacher reference number: 2064444

Teacher's date of birth: 6 July 1996

Location teacher worked: Darlington, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 26 to 28 January 2026 and 12 February 2026

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Samuel Everett formerly employed in Darlington, North East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Samuel Everett: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 19 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Samuel Everett Teacher ref number: 2064444 Teacher date of birth: 6 July 1996 TRA reference: 23914 Date of determination: 12 February 2026 Former employer: Haughton Academy, Education Village Academy Trust, Darlington. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 26 to 28 January 2026 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, and virtually on 12 February 2026, to consider the case of Mr Samuel Everett. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Philip Trendall, (lay panellist) and Mrs Beverley Montgomery (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jonathan White of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Andrew Cullen, barrister of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Samuel Everett was present and was represented by Mr Richard Matkin of NASUWT. The hearing took place in public, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in th e notice of p roceedings dated 11 November 2025 (as amended). It was alleged that Mr Samuel Everett was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a Teacher of Physical Education for Education Village Academy Trust: 1. In or around December 2023-February 2024 he engaged in offensive and/or racist and/or sexist behaviour and/or dialogue, by making one or more comments, postings and/or remarks on social media which related to immigration and gender, namely to the effect of those as set out within the accompanying schedule; 2. In behaving as may be found proven at 1 above, he demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others. Allegations in the accompanying schedule are as follows: He was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a Teacher of Physical Education for Education Village Academy Trust: 1. In or around December 2023-February 2024 he engaged in offensive and/or racist and/or sexist behaviour and/or dialogue, by making one or more comments, postings and/or remarks on social media which related to immigration and gender, namely those to the effect of: a. “Shouldn’t and wouldn’t ever happen if we had actual decent leaders with a bit of common sense” in response to a post saying “would you let your wife or daughters get into a London minicab who cannot speak English & who hasn’t been assessed for knowledge on safety, equality & regulations …”; b. “Anyone who says comrade deserves to be shipped to Russia say they can live under putin and have everything they say recorded for the state to monitor. No communist belongs here …”; c. “No chance” in response to a post saying “Palestine protects its people”; d. “Says the person who thinks it’s ridiculous majority of positions are held by white people in a majority white country”; e. “Completely agree, if you don’t respect our laws, culture and way of life you should leave, nobody is forcing you to stay. We don’t go to other peoples countries and tell them they’re wrong for how they go about things”; 5 f. “Sick of hearing rubbish being spouted by these idiots. They can live in societies where their values are accepted, it isn’t here. Leave. You won’t be missed” in response to a post saying “‘The law of Allah is superior to you laws, you cannot oppose and contradict what Allah says. We don’t like your democracy’, says Muslim cultural enrichers in UK. What do you think?”; g. “The point being people coming into this country do not share British values and there are instances of these people talking them down. If they don’t like Britain why do they come here?”; h. “There’s not an Islamist problem in our country according to some. How many times do we get called racists for being English? These people come from the most intolerable and barbaric places you can imagine and think they have more rights than us. Bore off”; i. “So far removed from society you. Good honest brits have had enough of all the goings on around the country especially in the capital. Jews can’t walk freely without fear of being killed, they desecrate our monuments and buildings. They hate us. Fact.”; j. “just get rid of the lot of them, if they hate this country so much they should fuck off”, in response to a post saying “… we have imported many more who hate the country. The only way we survive is through patriotism and understanding our history”; k. “Feel like ordering 20 nuggets every time I see these idiots taking it out on McDonald’s” in response to a post relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; l. “No” in response to a post saying “Should Labour’s Eddie Izzard, who could be an MP very soon & is fully intact with male genitalia, be allowed in women only toilets & changing rooms? Yes or no?”; m. “Deploy the navy” in response to a post stating “more boats filled with illegal migrant invaders are approaching our shores every day. Only Britain First would stop the boats and deport all illegal migrants”; 2. In behaving as may be found proven at 1 above, he demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others. Mr Everett admitting making the posts. Mr Everett denied, with the exception of the post at allegation 1(j), that the posts were offensive. Mr Everett denied that any of the posts were racist and/or sexist. Mr Everett denied allegation 2. 6 Mr Everett denied that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 4 to 13 Section 2: Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts – pages 15 to 22 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 24 to 111 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 113 to 190 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 193 to 203 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel received and accepted the advice of the legal advisor. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Mr Samuel Everett also gave oral evidence and called the following witnesses: Witness B - [REDACTED]. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 7 Mr Everett was employed by Haughton Academy, which was part of the Education Village Academy Trust (“the School”) as a teacher of physical education (“PE”) from 8 September 2022 until 12 June 2024. Mr Everett had an account on the social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter). The account profile included Mr Everett’s name and occupation as a teacher. It referred to the locality where he resided, which was different to that of the School. On 25 February 2024 a member of staff at the School received an email from an unknown individual expressing concern about posts made by Mr Everett on X. As a result of this concern being raised, an investigation was commenced. Mr Everett was not suspended during the investigation. He was subsequently dismissed on 12 June 2024. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. In or around December 2023-February 2024 you engaged in offensive and/or racist and/or sexist behaviour and/or dialogue, by making one or more comments, postings and/or remarks on social media which related to immigration and gender, namely to the effect of those as set out within the accompanying schedule; 2. In behaving as may be found proven at 1 above, you demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others. Allegations in the accompanying schedule are as follows: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a Teacher of Physical Education for Education Village Academy Trust: 1. In or around December 2023-February 2024 you engaged in offensive and/or racist and/or sexist behaviour and/or dialogue, by making one or more comments, postings and/or remarks on social media which related to immigration and gender, namely those to the effect of: e. “Completely agree, if you don’t respect our laws, culture and way of life you should leave, nobody is forcing you to stay. We don’t go to other peoples countries and tell them they’re wrong for how they go about things”; f. “Sick of hearing rubbish being spouted by these idiots. They can live in societies where their values are accepted, it isn’t here. Leave. You won’t be missed” in response to a post saying “‘The law of Allah is superior to you laws, you cannot 8 oppose and contradict what Allah says. We don’t like your democracy’, says Muslim cultural enrichers in UK. What do you think?”; h. “There’s not an Islamist problem in our country according to some. How many times do we get called racists for being English? These people come from the most intolerable and barbaric places you can imagine and think they have more rights than us. Bore off”; i. “So far removed from society you. Good honest brits have had enough of all the goings on around the country especially in the capital. Jews can’t walk freely without fear of being killed, they desecrate our monuments and buildings. They hate us. Fact.”; j. “just get rid of the lot of them, if they hate this country so much they should fuck off”, in response to a post saying “… we have imported many more who hate the country. The only way we survive is through patriotism and understanding our history”; m. “Deploy the navy” in response to a post stating “more boats filled with illegal migrant invaders are approaching our shores every day. Only Britain First would stop the boats and deport all illegal migrants”; 2. In behaving as may be found proven at 1 above, you demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others. The panel was presented with screenshots of the posts. In the Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts, Mr Everett admitted, as he had done from the outset of the investigation, that he was responsible for the posts. The panel was satisfied that this admission was consistent with the evidence before it. The X profile was in his name, and he identified himself as a teacher. The panel noted that his account had been in existence since January 2021. The panel therefore moved on to consider whether each post was offensive and/or racist and/or sexist. The parties had agreed on a working definition for each of these terms as follows: Offensive Repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting. Synonyms include disgusting, distasteful, shocking, repulsive, repellent, revolting. 9 Racist Characterised by or showing prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their perceived membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised. Sexist Characterised by or showing prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. The only post which the presenting officer submitted was sexist was that set out in Allegation 1a, which is dealt with below, when discussing the particulars of Allegation 1 that were not proved. The panel considered that each of these definitions was appropriate. In respect of each post, the panel considered whether it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any of these definitions were engaged, applying an objective test in doing so. In respect of Allegation 1e the panel noted that the comment or post that Mr Everett was responding to was not available. However, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post was offensive. The post referred to “you” in the context of leaving the country. The reference to “our laws, culture and way of life” indicated that the post was exclusive of people from outside the United Kingdom. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the post was racist. There was no reference to a particular racial or ethnic group. In respect of Allegation 1f, the panel had the advantage of the post to which Mr Everett was responding. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was offensive. Mr Everett, in responding to a view held about the religion of Islam, used emotive language such as “sick of hearing”, “rubbish” and “idiots”. He further expressed the view that people who held the view referred to in the initial post to which he was responding, which he referred to as “they” should leave the country. The panel found that the post was offensive as it demeaned and dismissed the views of those who held different opinions to him. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the post was racist. Mr Everett’s choice of words was poor and could be interpreted as race or faith-based. However, he had not made reference to a particular racial or ethnic group and people of the Islamic faith come from more than one racial or ethnic group. In relation to Allegation 1h, it was not clear to the panel what it was that Mr Everett was responding to. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was 10 offensive. The panel noted that ‘Islamist’ is not a term that is offensive in and of itself and that what mattered was post as a whole. The panel noted that the reference to people being “called racists for being English” distinguished them from “[T]hese people” and as such the language was divisive. Further, the reference to “the most intolerable and barbaric places you can imagine” was offensive. The implication of the post was that such places were majority Muslim countries. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the post was racist. The link to the post that Mr Everett was responding to was not available and so the panel could not fully assess the context. Mr Everett’s post did not refer specifically to race or ethnicity. In relation to Allegation 1i, the panel was able to read the post to which Mr Everett was replying. This was a post by the [REDACTED] which read: “If you don’t think Lee Anderson’s shameful attack on Sadiq Khan was racist & Islamophobic…it *may* be because you’re racist and Islamophobic yourself”. [REDACTED] post was not in response to anything that Mr Everett had previously said, but it was a post that Mr Everett responded to. The context of the dialogue was therefore that [REDACTED] had criticised Mr Anderson’s comments and Mr Everett was criticising [REDACTED] for having done so. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post was offensive. His post referred to “good honest Brits” and then referred to “they” in the context of desecration of monuments and buildings. The post concluded with the words “They hate us. Fact.” The panel found that the clear implication of the post was a distinction between “good honest Brits” on the one hand and “they” who “hate us” on the other. This language was divisive and sought to separate people into different groupings. The post was contrary to tolerance and inclusivity. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that post was racist. The subject matter of [REDACTED] post was a comment made by [REDACTED]. However, although Mr Everett was critical of [REDACTED] post, Mr Everett’s post did not engage with the point about [REDACTED] specifically and his post did not reference any particular ethnicity or racial group. In relation to Allegation 1j, the panel was able to read the post to which Mr Everett was replying. This was a post which read: “Nothing is sacred any more in the UK. We have created many generations of citizens who hate their home, plus we have imported many more who hate the country. The only way we survive is through patriotism and understanding our history”. 11 The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s response was offensive. Mr Everett had admitted it to be so, and the panel found that admission to be properly made. As with some of his other posts, Mr Everett’s use of the term “them” was divisive and pejorative. The post also contained an expletive which was insulting and inappropriate. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the post was racist. Neither the post to which he was replying, nor his own post referred to a racial or ethnic group. The post to which he was replying to referred both to people in the United Kingdom and those from abroad. In relation to 1m, the panel noted that Mr Everett had responded to a post from Britain First. Mr Everett had accepted in his evidence that he was now aware that this is a far- right organisation, though he was unaware of this at the time. The post to which Mr Everett was replying read: “More boats filled with illegal migrant invaders are approaching our shores every day. Only Britain First would stop the boats and deport all illegal migrants.” The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post in response to be offensive. Even though he did not know at the time what Britain First was, it was widely known as a far-right organisation, albeit one that is registered with the electoral commission and not proscribed. The post to which Mr Everett was replying used the word “invaders”, which was relevant to the context of Mr Everett’s reply to the effect that the navy should be deployed. The purpose of deploying the navy, in the context of the word “invaders”, was offensive as it implied advocating the use of military force against unarmed people in small boats. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post was racist. The post to which he was referring did not refer to any specific ethnicity or racial group and neither did Mr Everett’s own post in reply. In summary, the panel found that the posts particularised in Allegations 1e, f, h, i, j and m were offensive. The panel did not find any of the posts to be racist or sexist. The panel therefore considered Allegation 2 only to the extent of those matters found proved in Allegation 1. In doing so, the panel considered whether Mr Everett’s conduct demonstrated a lack of tolerance, a lack of respect for the rights of others or a lack of respect for the beliefs of others. In relation to the conduct proved in Allegation 1e, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett had demonstrated a lack of tolerance. He had done so by writing “…you should leave…”. The suggestion that people who disagreed with Mr Everett should leave the country demonstrated a lack of tolerance. 12 The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post demonstrated disrespect for the rights of others or for their beliefs. The contents of the post did not go beyond a general lack of tolerance and were not specific enough to engage the rights or beliefs of others. In relation to the conduct proved in Allegation 1f, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett had demonstrated a lack of tolerance. Mr Everett’s use of phrases such as “sick of hearing” “rubbish”, and “these idiots” demonstrated this, as did the instruction to “Leave”. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post demonstrated a lack of respect for the beliefs of others. The context of Mr Everett’s post was that he was replying to a post that referred to people who were said to consider Islamic law to be superior to the law of the United Kingdom. The offensive and intolerant nature of Mr Everett’s post, in the context of religious belief, demonstrated a lack of respect for people of that faith. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post demonstrated a lack of respect for the rights of others. The posts were not specific enough to engage the rights of others. In relation to the conduct proved in Allegation 1h, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett had demonstrated a lack of tolerance. The reference to “barbaric” and “intolerable” places demonstrated this. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post demonstrated disrespect for the rights of others or for their beliefs. The contents of the post did not go beyond a general lack of tolerance and were not specific enough to engage the rights or beliefs of others. The panel noted a distinction between the phrase “Islamist” and people of the Islamic faith. In relation to the conduct proved in Allegation 1i, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett had demonstrated a lack of tolerance through the divisive nature of the post as described above. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post demonstrated disrespect for the rights of others or for their beliefs. The contents of the post did not go beyond a general lack of tolerance and were not specific enough to engage the rights or beliefs of others. In relation to the conduct proved in Allegation 1j, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett had demonstrated a lack of tolerance. He had done so by writing “…they should fuck off…”. The suggestion that people who disagreed with Mr Everett should leave the country demonstrated a lack of tolerance. 13 The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post demonstrated disrespect for the rights of others or for their beliefs. The contents of the post did not go beyond a general lack of tolerance and were not specific enough to engage the rights or beliefs of others. The post criticised people who, Mr Everett believed, held certain views rather than beliefs and did not seek to restrain their rights. In relation to the conduct proved in Allegation 1m, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett had demonstrated a lack of tolerance. He had done so by responding to a post that included the word “invaders”. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Everett’s post demonstrated disrespect for the rights of others, specifically those who were likely to exercise their rights to claim asylum status. The panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the post demonstrated a lack of respect for the beliefs of others. The contents of the post did not refer to the beliefs of those referred to in the post to which Mr Everett was replying. In summary, the panel found that Mr Everett’s posts demonstrated a lack of tolerance in Allegations 1e, f, h, i, j and m. They further demonstrated a lack of respect for the rights of others in relation to 1m and a lack of respect for the beliefs of others in relation to 1f. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proved, for these reasons: 1. In or around December 2023-February 2024 you engaged in offensive and/or racist and/or sexist behaviour and/or dialogue, by making one or more comments, postings and/or remarks on social media which related to immigration and gender, namely to the effect of those as set out within the accompanying schedule; 2. In behaving as may be found proven at 1 above, you demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others. Allegations in the accompanying schedule are as follows: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a Teacher of Physical Education for Education Village Academy Trust: 1. In or around December 2023-February 2024 you engaged in offensive and/or racist and/or sexist behaviour and/or dialogue, by making one or more comments, postings and/or remarks on social media which related to immigration and gender, namely those to the effect of: a. “Shouldn’t and wouldn’t ever happen if we had actual decent leaders with a bit of common sense” in response to a post saying “would you let your wife or 14 daughters get into a London minicab who cannot speak English & who hasn’t been assessed for knowledge on safety, equality & regulations …”; b. “Anyone who says comrade deserves to be shipped to Russia say they can live under putin and have everything they say recorded for the state to monitor. No communist belongs here …”; c. “No chance” in response to a post saying “Palestine protects its people”; d. “Says the person who thinks it’s ridiculous majority of positions are held by white people in a majority white country”; g. “The point being people coming into this country do not share British values and there are instances of these people talking them down. If they don’t like Britain why do they come here?”; k. “Feel like ordering 20 nuggets every time I see these idiots taking it out on McDonald’s” in response to a post relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; l. “No” in response to a post saying “Should Labour’s Eddie Izzard, who could be an MP very soon & is fully intact with male genitalia, be allowed in women only toilets & changing rooms? Yes or no?”; 2. In behaving as may be found proven at 1 above, you demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others.; As noted above, the panel was presented with screenshots of the posts. In the Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts, Mr Everett admitted, as he had done from the outset of the investigation, that he was responsible for the posts. The panel therefore considered whether each post was offensive and/or racist and/or sexist. The presenting officer’s case was that only the post at Allegation 1a was sexist. The presenting officer’s case that Allegation 1l was offensive but not that it was racist and/or sexist. In relation to Allegation 1a, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was offensive, racist or sexist. The post to which Mr Everett was replying referred to a minicab driver who could not speak English, but it also referred to the driver not being assessed on safety, equality and regulations. The post did not reference a particular nationality, race or ethnicity. The panel considered Mr Everett’s engagement with the post to be unwise, the post to which he was referring having been unpleasant, clumsy and careless. However, it was not offensive within the definition set out above. In the context of widespread concern about the safety of women and girls on public transport generally, the panel was unable to identify evidence of prejudice in Mr Everett’s post. The panel was not satisfied that there was any evidence of stereotyping. 15 In relation to Allegation 1b, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was offensive or racist. The panel was not assisted by the fact that the post Mr Everett was replying to was referencing a video, which was not available for the panel to view. The contextual evidence was therefore limited. Mr Everett’s post was foolish and flippant, but having regard to the definitions that the panel was applying, it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was offensive. The post made no reference to any racial or ethnic groups. The people who Mr Everett had said should be “shipped to Russia” were “communists” and those who used the word “comrade”. While it was plainly flippant, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was racist. In relation to Allegation 1c, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was offensive or racist. There was not enough information in the original post to enable to the panel to make an informed assessment of Mr Everett’s two-word reply, having regard to the burden and standard of proof. In relation to Allegation 1d, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was offensive or racist. The context of this post was that Mr Everett was replying to a post by the [REDACTED], which was in turn a response to post by the ‘Telegraph Politics’ referring to a comment made by the [REDACTED]. Mr Everett was critical of [REDACTED] comment and referenced previous comments attributed to [REDACTED]. The panel considered that Mr Everett’s choice of words was poor, but that overall, his post fell within the bounds of criticism of a politician that did not cross the line into offensive, or racist, conduct. In relation to Allegation 1g, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was offensive or racist. The panel did not have the benefit of being able to view the full exchange that led up to Mr Everett’s post. The panel considered that this post was an example of the difficulty that can arise during exchanges on social media platforms. Mr Everett’s post made a sweeping statement about “people coming into this country” and uses the word “they” in that context. The post did not, in this instance, express the view that people should leave the country. The panel considered that Mr Everett’s choice of words was in poor taste and reflected poor judgement, but that it did not cross the line into offensive, or racist, conduct. In relation to Allegation 1k, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was offensive or racist. The context of Mr Everett’s post was that he was replying to a post from the [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] had re-posted a photograph or video with a caption from someone else which read “Breakaway demo is marching through central London screaming “Shame on you” at McDonalds”. The image was of poor quality. [REDACTED] had commented “Here’s that multi cultural society all you centrist dads and Times columnists wanted”. 16 Mr Everett’s post in reply referenced McDonalds and made no reference to [REDACTED] comment about a multicultural society. The panel considered that Mr Everett’s reference to “these idiots” related to the individuals in the photograph or video and their apparent conduct in protesting at a McDonalds. Mr Everett was expressing a view in that context, and it did not cross the line into offensive, or racist, conduct. In relation to Allegation 1l, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this post was offensive. This was a one-word reply by Mr Everett to a post that related to a topical issue and was part of legitimate debate. The wording in the post to which Mr Everett was replying was crude, but Mr Everett’s single word reply was insufficient to amount to offensive conduct. In respect of the matters not proved under Allegation 1, the panel was not required to consider Allegation 2. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Everett, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Everett was in breach of the following standards, as applicable to the facts of this case: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. In his witness statement, Mr Everett had accepted that his engagement “in such social media exchanges on a public platform was unwise and unbecoming of me as a teacher”. 17 The panel noted that the posts were not made in school or in the presence of pupils. The panel was presented with the School’s social media policy, which stated, in relation to personal accounts: “Staff members will ensure the necessary privacy controls are applied to personal accounts and will avoid identifying themselves as an employee of the school or the Trust on their personal social media accounts. Where staff members use social media in a personal capacity, they will ensure it is clear that views are personal and are not those of the school/Trust”. Mr Everett had, by his own admission, failed to successfully apply the necessary privacy controls and he was identifiable as a teacher on his profile. Although the School was not referred to, there was plainly enough information available to enable someone to email the School to express concerns about Mr Everett’s posts. The panel was also presented with the School’s Code of Conduct, which stated: “24.3 Be respectful to others when making any statement on social media and be aware that you are personally responsible for all communications that will be published on the internet for anyone to see.” The nature of Mr Everett’s posts was therefore inconsistent with the ethos and policies of the School. Mr Everett, in his evidence to the panel, accepted this, although he said that it had not been his intention to do so. The panel also considered whether Mr Everett’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that none of these offences was relevant. The panel took account of the fact that the posts were made outside the educational setting and considered the extent to which Mr Everett was exercising his right to freedom of expression, noting that it was not an unqualified right. The panel considered the circumstances of the posts as a whole and the nature of the views expressed and the fact they could have been accessed by a pupil or other member of the public. As noted above, the posts came to the attention of an individual who was able to ascertain that Mr Everett worked at the School and to that extent, his posts touched upon his role as an educator. The panel noted that not all conduct that is inappropriate automatically equates to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel therefore assessed the seriousness of Mr Everett’s conduct. In addition to the matters discussed above, the panel considered the following factors to be relevant: 18 • Mr Everett’s conduct within the School setting was of a high standard and there had been no concerns raised about his ability to teach pupils from different backgrounds effectively. This was supported by the evidence of Witness A and Witness B. • Mr Everett was responding to posts made by others, rather than threads he had started. The posts to which he was replying were often more inflammatory than his responses. • The posts were made over a period of weeks. This was not a single episode or a series of posts over a weekend, for example. • The posts often deployed divisive, insulting language. In his evidence before the panel, Mr Everett had explained that upon being confronted with the complaint by the School, he had been disappointed in himself. Mr Everett told the panel that he recognised, on reflection, that people reading the posts might view them as offensive and he accepted that parents or pupils may have been able to see them. Mr Everett told the panel that he regretted posting the comments. The panel considered that there was a significant risk that pupils could have been exposed to, or influenced by Mr Everett’s posts, having regard to the fact that they were made on a public platform. The panel therefore concluded that Mr Everett’s conduct amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Everett was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Everett’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Everett’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Everett was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that none of these offences were relevant. The panel considered whether Mr Everett had only damaged his own reputation by posting the comments or whether his reputation as a teacher, and thereby the reputation of the profession was also impacted. As set out above, Mr Everett’s profile had identified 19 him as a teacher. Someone had clearly been able to use that information to identify where he taught. The result was that a parent or pupil could have come across these posts. The panel considered that this had the potential to undermine the reputation of Mr Everett as a teacher. A parent or pupil reading those posts may have been concerned about Mr Everett’s tolerance and respect for others in the context of him teaching. The panel therefore concluded that findings of misconduct were serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on Mr Everett’s status as a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Everett’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Everett, which involved engaging in offensive dialogue on a public social media platform thereby demonstrating a lack of tolerance and a lack of respect for the rights and beliefs of others, the panel was of the view that there was a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession and that the conduct found against Mr Everett was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Everett in the profession. The panel decided that there was a public interest consideration in retaining Mr Everett in the profession, since he had made a valuable contribution to the profession as evidenced by Witness A and Witness B. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching 20 profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. As noted above, the panel considered that Mr Everett’s conduct was of sufficient seriousness to amount to unacceptable professional conduct. Mr Everett’s offensive posts could have been seen by pupils or parents and had been seen by at least one individual who contacted the School to express concern. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Everett. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, the behaviour that was clearly relevant was: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; The panel gave consideration to the following behaviour: • actions or behaviours that promote extremist political or religious views or attitudes, or that undermine fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. This would encompass deliberately allowing the exposure of pupils to such actions or behaviours, including through contact with any individuals who are widely known to express views that support such activity, for example by inviting any such individuals to speak in schools; The panel had not found any of the posts to be racist or sexist. It noted that Mr Everett had been responding to other posts, rather than initiating threads where he offered his opinions. While the posts displayed a lack of tolerance and, in two instances, a lack of respect for rights and/or beliefs, the panel did not consider that the level of seriousness suggested by this behaviour was engaged. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order may be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. Mr Everett’s actions were deliberate, in that he had knowingly posted the comments on X and had chosen to engage in the dialogue, albeit the panel noted that Mr Everett had done so in the mistaken belief that the posts were private. Mr Everett had not sought to actively promote a particular argument but had reacted to those that had. There was no evidence that Mr Everett was under duress. He had described personal difficulties he was experiencing at the time, in his evidence, but the panel did not consider that this amounted to duress. 21 Mr Everett was at an early stage in his career and the panel assessed his contribution to education proportionate to his length of service. The panel attached particular significance to the evidence of Witness A and Witness B. Witness A had spoken highly of Mr Everett’s contribution to the School and this had been reflected in the decision not to suspend him when the concerns were raised. Witness B had engaged Mr Everett through an agency, in the knowledge that Mr Everett had been referred to the TRA. Mr Everett had a strong record of making a positive contribution in the settings in which he had worked, particularly in engaging pupils of all background to participate in sport. Witness B spoke positively of Mr Everett’s contribution and told the panel that he would not have any concerns about employing Mr Everett in the future if the opportunity arose. The panel assessed Mr Everett’s insight into his conduct. It noted the evidence of Witness A that Mr Everett had demonstrated insight and remorse from the point at which the concerns were raised with him by the School. That had been reflected in actions taken by him to delete his posts and close his social media accounts. The panel also noted that Mr Everett had demonstrated insight when giving evidence during the hearing. Mr Everett had understood that his posts could have been interpreted in a way other than he had intended and had expressed regret at having made the posts. In light of Mr Everett’s remorse and his insight into his conduct and his successful placement in another school since these events, the panel considered that there was no significant ongoing risk of repetition. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel attached particular significance to Mr Everett’s insight in reaching this conclusion. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of sanction. 22 In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Everett is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Everett fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher engaging in offensive dialogue on a public social media platform thereby demonstrating a lack of tolerance and a lack of respect for the rights and beliefs of others. This behaviour resulted in Mr Everett’s dismissal from his teaching position. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have 23 considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Everett, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel makes this observation: “The panel considered that there was a significant risk that pupils could have been exposed to, or influenced by Mr Everett’s posts, having regard to the fact that they were made on a public platform.” In this case there is evidence that the posts were seen by a member of the public as the panel notes “…the posts came to the attention of an individual who was able to ascertain that Mr Everett worked at the School….”. The panel also comments as follows: “Mr Everett told the panel that he recognised, on reflection, that people reading the posts might view them as offensive and he accepted that parents or pupils may have been able to see them.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel assessed Mr Everett’s insight into his conduct. It noted the evidence of Witness A that Mr Everett had demonstrated insight and remorse from the point at which the concerns were raised with him by the School. That had been reflected in actions taken by him to delete his posts and close his social media accounts. The panel also noted that Mr Everett had demonstrated insight when giving evidence during the hearing. Mr Everett had understood that his posts could have been interpreted in a way other than he had intended and had expressed regret at having made the posts. In light of Mr Everett’s remorse and his insight into his conduct and his successful placement in another school since these events, the panel considered that there was no significant ongoing risk of repetition.” However, I am also mindful of the panel’s finding that “A parent or pupil reading those posts may have been concerned about Mr Everett’s tolerance and respect for others in the context of him teaching”. While recognising the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, I also note that the panel does not record having been presented with evidence that Mr Everett had developed full insight into the possible negative and harmful impact of his behaviour on others, and/or that he has taken the necessary steps to develop that insight. I have therefore given this element some weight in reaching my decision. 24 I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel comments: “The panel considered whether Mr Everett had only damaged his own reputation by posting the comments or whether his reputation as a teacher, and thereby the reputation of the profession was also impacted. As set out above, Mr Everett’s profile had identified him as a teacher. Someone had clearly been able to use that information to identify where he taught. The result was that a parent or pupil could have come across these posts. The panel considered that this had the potential to undermine the reputation o f Mr Everett as a teacher. A parent or pupil reading those posts may have been concerned about Mr Everett’s tolerance and respect for others in the context of him teaching. The panel therefore concluded that findings of misconduct were serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on Mr Everett’s status as a teacher. For these reasons, t he panel found that Mr Everett’s actions constitute d conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher making offensive comments on an open social media platform, including using expletives that were insulting and/or inappropriate, in this case and the negative impact that such a finding is likely to have on the reputation of the profession. In this case the panel notes that the posts “…often deployed divisive, insulting language”. I am also mindful of the panel’s finding that the posts were made over a period of several weeks, as opposed to a one-off episode or a series of posts over a weekend, for example. Furthermore, I have taken into consideration the panel’s comments on “…the extent to which Mr Everett was exercising his right to freedom of expression…”. However, I note that the panel has also determined that “…the posts came to the attention of an individual who was able to ascertain that Mr Everett worked at the School and to that extent, his posts touched upon his role as an educator”. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. 25 I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Everett himself. The panel notes having had the benefit of two pieces of character evidence and makes the following observation: “Mr Everett had a strong record of making a positive contribution in the settings in which he had worked, particularly in engaging pupils of all backgrounds to participate in sport. Witness B spoke positively of Mr Everett’s contribution and told the panel that he would not have any concerns about employing Mr Everett in the future if the opportunity arose.” The panel also notes that Mr Everett has had a successful teaching placement in another school since these events and had demonstrated high standards of conduct within the school setting. However, the panel qualifies its finding in relation to Mr Everett’s contribution to the profession. It states that “Mr Everett was at an early stage in his career and the panel assessed his contribution to education proportionate to his length of service”. In light of the panel’s findings that he has made “…a valuable contribution to the profession…”, it does not find that Mr Everett had either demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. A prohibition order would prevent Mr Everett from continuing his work. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, and while noting the evidence of insight and remorse found by the panel, I have placed considerable weight on the seriousness of the misconduct that it has found, which included a teacher engaging in offensive dialogue on a public social media platform thereby demonstrating a lack of tolerance and a lack of respect for the rights and beliefs of others. I have also placed considerable weight on the likely negative impact of this behaviour on the reputation of the profession. I have also noted the panel’s findings that Mr Everett’s behaviour was deliberate and that there was no evidence that he was acting under duress. In my judgment the panel has, in making its recommendation that a prohibition order should not be imposed, failed to give sufficient weight to these factors. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Everett has made and is making to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. 26 I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In doing so, I have referred to the Advice which states the following: “Where a case involved any of the following, it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate: • arson and other “major” criminal damage; • possession (including for personal use) of any class A drug; • possession with intent to supply another person, supply (selling, dealing or sharing) and production of any class A, B, C or unclassified drugs; • fraud or serious dishonesty; • theft from a person or other serious cases of theft; • intolerance and/or hatred on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or protected characteristics; • violence. This is not an exhaustive list, and panels should consider each case on its individual merits taking into account all the circumstances involved.” While the panel makes it clear that Mr Everett’s behaviour involved a lack of tolerance and a lack of respect for the rights and beliefs of others, I have also given some weight to the mitigations presented in this case, including that Mr Everett had not sought to actively promote a particular argument but had reacted to those that had. I have also noted that the panel had found Mr Everett’s comments to be neither racist or sexist, that there had been no evidence of a recurrence of this behaviour since these events, and that Mr Everett has demonstrated a degree of insight and remorse. Therefore, in my judgment, a longer review period is not warranted. I consider therefore that a two-year review period (the statutory minimum) is a proportionate and appropriate response to the misconduct found in this case and to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. It will also give Mr Everett the opportunity to provide further reassurance that the risk of a repetition of these events is negligible should he wish to return to the profession in the future and continue his career. This means that Mr Samuel Everett is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but 27 not until 5 March 2028, two years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Everett remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Everett has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 18 February 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.