The parents who complained about the behaviour of teacher Olive Jones have now given their version of events to the media. Needless to say, it's quite different to that outlined by Jones, sycophant 'journalist' Jonathan Petre and the Mail on Sunday.
But here's what should make people exceptionally angry.
The parents have a fourteen-year-old daughter who is seriously ill with leukaemia. As if that wasn't stressful enough, the selfish actions of Jones and the pathetic way the Mail on Sunday wanted to push their 'political correctness gone mad' agenda no matter what the truth means they are now thrust into the media spotlight through no fault of their own (except for trying to protect their daughter).
Jones and the Mail on Sunday left them little choice but to speak out given the dismal, one-sided nature of the coverage that spread around almost every media outlet going, and several political blogs too.
Yes, they could have kept quiet, but as they were being smeared all over the media (and abused in reader comments) as almost everyone bought into the line Jones was spinning, why should they?
But frankly, haven't they got enough to deal with without all this?
The Mail on Sunday should be treated with utter contempt for forcing the family into this position, which was sadly inevitable once Petre's story spread. Perhaps Editor Peter Wright would like to explain how he thinks putting the family in the spotlight in this way is in any way justified?
Petre should consider why he thought it was right to file this story despite not getting any proper account from the other side about what really happened and producing something that was so obviously incomplete and half-baked.
And then there's Jones, who seems to want to play the martyr. Her friends at the Christian Legal Centre (whose involvement should also be questioned) have put out a statement on her behalf saying she:
stands by her account.
So not content with causing distress to the family by running off to the media in the first place, she's now calling them liars as well.
Not sure which bit of the Bible that is in...
Here's what the girl's mother said:
'Mrs Jones was employed to teach maths but used every opportunity to discuss religion, despite the fact I made it clear we were a non-religious family and didn't want to talk about these issues in this way.The father added:
'On one occasion she asked my daughter to pray with her, my daughter was distressed by this behaviour.
'On another, after the death of my daughter's close friend, Miss Jones told my 14-year-old daughter that when young people die they go to heaven. These conversations upset my daughter deeply.
'The sessions with Mrs Jones became increasingly traumatic and we decided it was not appropriate for this woman to come to my home.'
'Mrs Jones' actions caused our family much distress at what is a difficult time. We no longer wanted Mrs Jones to come to our home at any time in the future and we asked the tuition service to deal with the matter.'
The first point is very valid. Jones was meant to be teaching maths, not RE, so she really doesn't have much right to start talking about religion anyway. That's not an issue of 'political correctness', just a question of professionalism.
But, if she did start to talk about her faith and was told to stop, why did she continue to discuss it?
Secondly, in the original Mail on Sunday article, Jones made out she was 'unaware' of the parents' objections. Their statement clearly contradicts that.
Thirdly, Jones claimed after the last visit:
She left on what she thought were good terms.
Yet the parents say the sessions were 'increasingly traumatic' and their daughter was 'distressed' and 'upset'.
Fourth, she said she never pushed her 'beliefs down other people's throats'. Given the number of times both the original article and now the parents' statement claim otherwise, that looks false.
On top of that Jones admitted in the original that a similar complaint about her inappropriately discussing her religious beliefs with a pupil had been made three years earlier.
It should also be remembered - because so many journalists forgot it - that Jones remains under investigation. She has not been sacked, but is not being used until the complaint is resolved. Whether she thought getting the media on her side would help her remains to be seen - it may just have backfired on her.
Jones also said:
'It's a sad situation that in today's society our freedom of speech has been suppressed.'
Nonsense. She was asked not to talk about certain things when she was in another person's house because it was upsetting their cancer-stricken daughter and yet she carried on. That's not a question of free speech.
Jones told the Mail on Sunday of her belief that her life was saved by a direct intervention from God when, as a teenager, she thought she was going to die in a tractor accident before the 'sound of a rushing wind' spared her. More likely: she was never going to die in a tractor accident. But to be telling this story of a life-saving miracle to a teenager with leukaemia is not only spectacularly ill-judged, it is in exceptionally poor taste.
She also said, with a mind-boggling lack of tact:
'I've been left so devastated by the whole situation.'
Yes, she's devastated. That was the line she and the Mail on Sunday wanted to put out to make her the victim rather than the parents struggling to deal with a very sick daughter or, more importantly, the girl herself.
Sadly the Jones/Mail version has already spread - that she was sacked for offering to pray for a sick child. The less-catchy but more-truthful version which says her services are not being used until after a complaint about her upsetting a sick child is fully investigated, hasn't.
Eventhough the Mail published the parents' comments last night, only the Telegraph and Bristol Evening Post has (so far) followed suit. Why the difference?
And, why the difference in the way the Mail has treated these events? The original was on the front page and the main editorial in Sunday's paper and the lead on their website for most of that day.
The story containing the parents' views is not on the Mail's homepage at all at time of writing. Over one hundred stories are - including ones about a pop star without make-up and whether Simon Cowell has put on weight.
But the article which suggests their main story from two days before wasn't entirely true? Less important than that, apparently.
Moreover, they published over 200 comments on the original article. They have so far (in 19 hours) allowed no comments through on the follow-up.
A statement from the North Somerset Council Press office explains:
Teachers like Olive do not have to set aside their faith, but personal beliefs and practices should be secondary to the needs and beliefs of the student and their family and the requirements of professional practice.
That perfectly reasonable view is now what is described as 'political correctness' and 'persecution'. That view, according to the Mail on Sunday, is the view of 'zealots'.
On Sunday, blogger Iain Dale (who should know not to believe everything that is printed in the Mail on Sunday) dismissed the parents' complaint as 'vexatious' without waiting to hear their side of the story. Vexatious means annoying, irritating to the subject, without sufficient grounds. Yes, how annoying and groundless for the parents to try and protect their seriously ill daughter from distress.
Like most others, he hasn't bothered reporting the parents' comments. His post was headlined 'One rule for Christians...' and he suggested:
Does anyone seriously imagine the teacher would have been sacked if she had been a muslim, and offered prayers for the child? Of course not. And rightly so.
Does anyone seriously imagine the Mail on Sunday would have splashed a fawning, unquestioning interview on the front page if a Muslim teacher had been talking to a pupil about his or her religion? Of course not.
Meanwhile, the Christian Legal Centre - who have helped peddle the lies - said in support of Jones:
It is time for a common sense approach to be restored in all these matters.
So to the CLC, a family wishing to save their sick child from upset by complaining to the employers of the intransigent woman causing the distress is not 'common sense.'
But spreading lies and misinformation in the papers and causing further upset to the family is 'common sense.'
Who are the zealots?