Talking to the ISI about St.Benedict's

I have been having a lengthy correspondence with Mr. Durell Barnes, Director of Communication at the Independent Schools Inspectorate. I initially phoned him, and then followed up with emails. I started this because of the unbelievably good reports the ISI gave out in respect of their inspections of both junior and senior schools in November last year.

From: Jonathan West
Date: 25 February 2010
Subject: St Benedicts School
To: Durell Barnes

Dear Mr Barnes

I am writing concerning our previous telephone calls about the Reports of the ISI Inspection of St Benedict's School, Ealing (Senior and Junior school) carried out in November 2009.

I refer to Paragraph 4.4 of the Senior School report and paragraph 4.5 of the Junior School report. Paragraph 4.4 of the Senior School report states:

"The trustees and advisors are aware of and are diligent in discharging their responsibilities for the welfare, health and safety of pupils, including taking proper steps to review and evaluate the effectiveness of their child protection policies and procedures. A serious recent incident involving a member of the monastic community caused the trustees to request an independent review of the measures taken to minimise risk. The advice received from the independent experts has been fully implemented."

The same wording is included in paragraph 4.5 of the Junior School Report.

The "serious recent incident" presumably refers to the 2009 conviction and sentencing of Father David Pearce on multiple charges of indecent assault and sexual assault against pupils at the school over a period of 36 years.

The most recent version of the school's Child Protection and Safeguarding Policy is available online at the following location
http://www.stbenedicts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/child-protection-and-safeguarding-policy-sep-09-final.pdf

It is dated 1st September 2009.

Abbot Martin Shipperlee of Ealing Abbey is chairman of governors of both schools and chairman of trustees of the charitable trust which runs both the schools and the Abbey.

I met the Abbot on 10th September to discuss matters arising out of the conviction of Pearce. (Pearce pleaded guilty to 11 charges of assaults on 5 boys on 12th August, the first day of his trial, having agreed the previous day to change his plea.) You can find a report of my meeting with the Abbot here.
http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/meeting-with-abbot-shipperlee-of-ealing.html

As you can see, I suggested the need for an independent review at the meeting. The Abbot did not state that an independent review had already been carried out, and did not promise that he would have one. He wanted to reflect on the matter.

On 2nd October, Pearce was sentenced to a total of 8 years imprisonment for his crimes, and on the same day the Abbot issued a press notice in which he promised an independent review. This was reported in several newspapers.

The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/devil-in-a-dog-collar-jailed-for-child-sex-attacks-1796776.html
Ealing Gazette: http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealing-news/local-ealing-news/2009/10/02/ealing-abbey-priest-jailed-for-child-abuse-64767-24839969/
The BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8287700.stm

The Abbot repeated the promise in letters of the same date to all parents and to all parishioners. You can see a copy of the letter to parishioners here
http://www.ealingabbey.org.uk/07monastery-0home.htm

The Charity Commission has held two Statutory Inquiries into the conduct of the Trust which runs the school and the Abbey. Their report (published in December) is exceedingly critical of the trustees. Their report is available here
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/investigations/inquiryreports/benedicts.asp

Key points from the report you may wish to note are as follows

Child Protection 53. Despite assurances from the trustees, they failed to implement the restrictions placed on Individual A whilst on Charity premises and the Commission is extremely critical of the trustees in this regard. One of the terms of Individual A’s continued role in the Charity was that he was to have no access to children and young people on the Charity’s premises – the trustees failed to ensure this was the case (refer to paragraph 47 above). Actions taken to protect the reputation of the Charity 54. Following the arrest in January 2008 the trustees took positive steps to protect the reputation of the Charity and continue to do so – the trustees have confirmed publicly that an independent review will be carried out to ensure that this situation can not reoccur.

Local MP Andy Slaughter called for an "independent and transparent inquiry" in an article published in the Ealing Gazette in response to the Charity Commission report.
http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealing-news/ealing-columnists/2009/12/21/constituency-matters-protect-children-but-don-t-abandon-civil-liberties-64767-25443116/

I have been in contact with Peter Turner, the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor for the Diocese of Westminster, who has written to me stating

A Review was commissioned by Abbot Martin, but this is still to report back with the findings. It is intended that within the bounds of confidentiality the report will be published.

And yet, the report of the ISI inspections carried out in November states that an independent review has already happened and its recommendations have been acted on!

Since the ISI's previous inspection of the schools in January 2004, there have to my knowledge been the following notifiable incidents concerning child protection at St Benedict's School.

1. The trial and conviction in 2005 of former maths teacher John Maestri, on charges of sexual abuse of pupils at the school.
2. The civil case brought by "C" in 2006 against Pearce and the school, in respect of complaints of sexual abuse by Pearce when C was a pupil. The case resulted in damages of more than £40,000 being awarded against the school.
3. The trial in 2007 of Father Stanislaus Hobbs, a monk at the Abbey and former teacher at the school, on charges of sexual abuse of a boy in the Abbey. He was acquitted.
4. 4. During the trial of Fr Hobbs, evidence was given of a separate sexual assault on the same boy by Fr Hobbs during a school trip to Italy. Because the event occurred outside the UK, it cannot be prosecuted here, but during police questioning, a record of which was given in evidence at the trial, Fr Hobbs accepted that the incident had occurred as described.
5. A second trial and conviction of John Maestri in 2008 on similar charges.
6. The trial and conviction of Father David Pearce in 2009, on a series of charges of sexual abuse of pupils at the school on dates ranging from 1972 to 2007.

There was a further trial of John Maestri in 2003, but your January 2004 inspection report makes no mention of it and appears to make no mention of child protection issues at all.

As I understand it, all the above events should have been notified by the school to the DCSF Teacher Misconduct Section even though some of them may have referred to incidents which occurred some years previously. As I understand it, the ISI has a duty to inspect on these notifications if they have been received since the last inspection, even if the incidents referred to occurred prior to the last inspection.

I therefore have the following questions.

1. What notifications were the inspectors in possession of in respect of these cases at the time they carried out their November 2009 inspection of the school?
2. On what dates were those notifications made to the DCSF and on what dates were the notifications passed to the ISI?
3. Have any other notifications been made by the school to the DCSF in respect of any child protection issues since your January 2004 inspection? If so, on what date(s) were these notifications made, and on what dates were they passed to ISI?
4. What actions were taken in the course of the visit to inspect against the notifications?
5. What evidence was provided to the inspectors concerning the "independent review" referred to in the report?
6. Were the inspectors aware of the Statutory Inquiries which had been conducted by the Charity Commission?
7. Were the inspectors given access by the school to the correspondence with the Charity Commission, and the minutes of meetings between the Commission and the trustees in the course of the Statutory Inquiries?
8. Did the inspectors contact the Charity Commission in order to ascertain the scope of the Charity Commission's Inquiries and the outcome of their investigations?
9. What training in and qualifications in child protection did the inspector(s) specifically responsible for inspecting child protection policies have?
10. Did the inspectors recommend any further improvements to child protection procedures? If so, what recommendations were made?
11. What information was provided by the school to the inspectors concerning the "independent review" promised on October 2nd but not yet completed?
12. Have the inspectors requested written confirmation by the school on completion of any actions requested as a result of the inspection?

I look forward to your early reply on these points.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan West

He replied about a week later.

From: Durell Barnes
Date: 3 March 2010
Subject: RE: St Benedicts School
To: Jonathan West

Dear Mr West,

Thank you for the email below. It arrived while I was away for a few days and I hope you received an out of office response. It is receiving our attention at the moment.

With best wishes,

Durell

(A telephone conversation took place before the next email, in which I told Durell Barnes about the summary of the "Independent Review" published on the Abbey website.)

From: Jonathan West
Date: 29 March 2010
Subject: Re: St Benedicts School
To: Durell Barnes

Dear Mr Barnes

I've now had a chance to look over in more detail the summary of the
"Independent Review" I advised you of. I've published my view of it
here.

The "Independent Review" at Ealing Abbey
http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/03/independent-review-at-ealing-abbey.html

As you will be able to see, I'm not impressed. As you will also be able to see, it was commissioned by the Abbot, who is also chairman of the trustees of the St Benedict's Trust (which charitable trust that runs both the Abbey and the school) and chairman of governors of the school.

I look forward to hearing as soon as possible the answers to the questions in my email of 25th February.

Regards
Jonathan West

This time, the reply was much quicker, though not much longer.

From: Durell Barnes
Date: 29 March 2010
Subject: RE: St Benedicts School
To: Jonathan West


Dear Mr West,

Thank you for your email and the link to your response. This will provide further scope for the ongoing discussions with DCSF.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Durell

I decided that it was time to start pressing. He had had my original information for quite some time by now.

From: Jonathan West
Date: 29 March 2010
Subject: Re: St Benedicts School
To: Durell Barnes

Dear Mr Barnes

Could you give me some indication of the present state of those discussions? I do understand that you are dealing with a government bureaucracy and therefore the wheels grind exceedingly slowly. However it is now over a month since I provided you with the written summary of my concerns and over 2 months since I first contacted you by telephone to raise the issue.

In the circumstances, I think it reasonable to request an interim response indicating the current state of discussions with DCSF and others, and providing such facts as you have so far been able to ascertain.

Regards
Jonathan West

But I got no immediate reply, nor any kind of reply at all for 3 weeks. I phoned him, mentioning that accounts of abuse by a number of different monks and teacher had been provided in comments on the blog. This got a response.

From: Durell Barnes
Date: 19 April 2010
Subject: St Benedict's
To: Jonathan West

Dear Mr West,

Further to our telephone call this morning, I have been in touch with DCSF about the individuals you have mentioned and they have enquired if allegations exist in writing. I have done a google search and looked briefly at your blog but did not immediately find anything. I am sorry if it was technical ineptitude on my part which caused me not to find anything more rapidly. In view of the seriousness of these issues, I wondered if you could steer me more directly to the allegations?

I realise this is not an email in answer to your queries and I hope to send something to you in that regard later today.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Durell

So I provided the details.

From: Jonathan West
Date: 19 April 2010
Subject: Re: St Benedict's
To: Durell Barnes


Dear Mr Barnes

With respect to each of the comments I've listed below, I've included at the end a hyperlink to the original comment on the blog.

Concerning Father Gregory, the following comment has been placed on the blog:

Mark Tanner said...

Having read with complete wonder the comments listed in this excellent blog, I have absolutely no compunction in adding my name to the list of pupils that suffered at the hands of these degenerate smock-fiddlers. I too have been dealing with the trauma that these troglodytes dished out in the 70's, but assuming that I was alone in my torment, I chose to deal with it on my own.

I seem to have missed out on the 'collaring' of Father Gregory, so would be most grateful if anyone out there can furnish me with more details so I can further collar the pathetic gnome and put him and the catholic church back to the swamp from which they came.

I fully intend, now at the age of 50, to try firstly to reclaim some of my troubled years and secondly, to make damn sure these child molesters no longer have the opportunities afforded them when I was at school and keep this from happening again.

http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/catholic-clerical-abuse-at-ealing-abbey.html?showComment=1270989472611#c8312524928454495997

The Father Gregory referred to is Father Gregory Chillman, a monk still resident at the Abbey, and one of the trustees of the charitable trust which runs both the Abbey and the school.

And the following has appeared with respect to Laurence Soper, who was Abbot at Ealing from 1991 to 2000. According to the Abbey website, Soper is currently in Rome.

Anonymous said...

FROM AN ELDERLY PARISHIONER

A very good friend, who knows the abbey well, told me some weeks back that 'Abbot Laurence's problems' stemmed from his work with young offenders. She said there may have been other issues, relating more directly to the abbey and school, but could not be sure.

What a pity the abbey hasn't understood that 'honesty is the best policy'! Dragging the truth from it, piecemeal, is like extracting rotten teeth and a terribly sad, unpleasant spectacle to boot.

The abbey, church and school should be the heart of our community - honest, upright, trustworthy, giving - a centre of nobility and exemplary goodness.

What must St Benedict think of these errant, self-serving sons and their devious ways?

- L B

http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-letter-concerning-child-protection.html?showComment=1262722364351#c3891090577250533621

emmanuel said...

I was at St Benedict's upper school until the late 1970s.

Fr David had a reputation then as someone to avoid, however I never heard any specific allegations, he was just considered rather creepy and the "Gay Dave" nickname was current in the 1970s.

However, I was a victim of his colleague Fr Laurence Soper. I had to go to Soper's office after school one day to be caned for not doing my homework. Canings then were commonplace and almost considered as a badge of achievement amongst the boys, so that didn't bother me.

Fr Laurence told me to put my hands in my trousers and wriggle my underpants down so that they wouldn't obstruct the caning! He then went a bit red in the face as he said he wanted to double check that I didn't have some protective padding down the back of my trousers and he put his hands inside the back of my trousers and spent some time groping my buttocks. I thank God that that was the worst of it and that the creep didn't grope anywhere else. However I still felt very soiled and ashamed and felt too embarrassed to tell my parents who did not get on well at the time. I wonder if the piece of shit knew that! I do feel guilty about not spreaking up as it may have alerted the authorites to some extent.

By the way, I was caned many times at St Ben's and never did anyone else use this "underpants" and "check for padding" trick, the other teachers just issued a simple wacking with no preamble.

This was a double betrayal for me as I was passionate about science at the time and Soper, who was an accompllished physics scholar, taught me physics. I didn't exactly go off the rails but I did rebel a bit at St Benedicts and didn't achieve the qualifications I had hoped for.

A pox on Soper, Pearce, the other sick shits and especially on the craven cowards who protected them, may they rot in hell!

http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/10/sentencing-of-fr-david-pearce.html?showComment=1270953304803#c1436690545485530438


Anonymous said...

Father Lawrence was head of either L5 or U5 when I was there and it was definitely no trousers and no pants for the caning. It was common knowledge amongst the boys. My best friend had the misfortune to be caned by him, no padding involved or discovered. My friends Mother complained nothing happened... other teachers Fr Benedict, Mr Nonehebel just caned you in the way you'd expect. Fr Lawrence obviously had slightly more interest than just making you behave.

http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/catholic-clerical-abuse-at-ealing-abbey.html?showComment=1256770161538#c8921499571693156966

Anonymous said...

I would like to add something about father Lawrence if I may.

I was a pupil in the Middles School, just before his hand over to Mr Burns as it turned out.

I am only aware of one boy being caned during my time there and, not being a particular close mate of his, I never sought for or heard any of the more immediate details. All I knew was he got caned and came out crying. That's it.

Nor can I lay claim to knowledge of any untoward dealings between this monk and other boys at the school be it then or at any other time. I certainly wasn't aware of any rumours.

Perhaps that's why, when I found myself alone in his rather secluded study right at the top of the building, stood next to this cleric, my trousers -at his request- around my ankles as he rubbed his had up and down my thigh, the sounds of the other boys playing in the playground below and wishing with all my heart that I could be down there amongst them, I have no problem believing what's being said about him.

http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/catholic-clerical-abuse-at-ealing-abbey.html?showComment=1257106309349#c8172520718616681574


I have received private emails from various victims of abuse at the school. I am treating those communications as confidential so I cannot provide their contents to you at this time, but they are in general consistent with what has been publicly said on the blog about Pearce, Maestri, Hobbs, Soper and Chillman.

In every case I do what I can to encourage the victims to come forward to relate their experiences to the police. As you are probably aware, for the victims that is much easier said than done.

In addition you should be aware that Abbot Martin Shipperlee was interviewed over the phone on the "Sunday" programme on BBC R4 on April 11th. In the interview he stated that Father David's activities had first "officially" come to his knowledge in 2004. In the interview he is questioned (rather gently) by Ed Stourton on the failure to adequately supervise Pearce once it had been determined that he was a danger to children and placed on a restricted ministry.

The Abbot's statement concerning dates is in fact not correct. On 7 April 2006, when reporting on the outcome of the civil case against Pearce and the Abbey, The Evening Standard said the following

"The pupil who won the payout, called C by High Court judge Mr Justice Field, attended between 1989 and 1993. The Abbot of Ealing Abbey, Martin Shipperlee, admitted to C in 2004 that fellow-monks knew of allegations-against Pearce before he retired as headmaster in 1993. But even after he was arrested that same year following allegations of abuse by another boy, Pearce was made bursar of the £8,730-a-year school because he was the only monk with the right skills."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ex-pupil+wins+%5Bpounds+sterling%5D43,000+payout+for+sex+abuse+at+school...-a0144215540

The Abbot can hardly have been officially unaware of Pearce before 2004 if he had been arrested in 1993.

I have a recording of the relevant segment of the programme which I can email to you if you wish. It is a Windows Media Audio file and is just over 2Mb in size. The segment is seven minutes, and also includes an interview with Eileen Shearer, the first director of COPCA (Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and vulnerable Adults) explaining why Archbishop Vincent Nichols, as chairman of COPCA at the time, would not have been informed about anything as unimportant as cases of abuse by priests and the measures taken in response.

Regards
Jonathan West

He replied immediately.

From: Durell Barnes
Date: 19 April 2010
Subject: St Benedict's
To: Jonathan West

Dear Mr West,

Thank you for the further information you have sent today. We are actively pursuing this matter, as we have been since you first contacted us. As you are aware, we have been in touch with both the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and action is ongoing. However, I am unable at this stage to give any more information about that.

With regard to your queries about notifications, DCSF have confirmed that we are not able either to confirm or deny information relating to notifications. It has been brought to our attention that more than one independent review has been commissioned relating to St Benedict’s and the inspection report will, on completion of enquiries, clarify this point and other matters including the charity commission inquiries.

With regard to your query about post-inspection activity, after inspections DCSF requests action plans from schools relating to any regulatory failings noted in the report and can request a visit from ISI to check that the action plan has been implemented.

I am sorry not to be able to respond to your enquiries more fully at this stage whilst enquiries are ongoing but please rest assured that we take very seriously our responsibilities with regard to safeguarding children.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Durell

And a further email the following day

From: Durell Barnes
Date: 20 April 2010 15:20
Subject: Radio 4 programme
To: Jonathan West

Dear Mr West,

You mentioned in a previous email that you could send me a file which would enable me to listen to the interview with the former abbot which took place on the Sunday programme. I would be very grateful if you could do this.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Durell

Of course, I sent him the file immediately.

From: Jonathan West
Date: 20 April 2010
Subject: Re: Radio 4 programme
To: Durell Barnes


Dear Mr Barnes,

The interview is in fact with the current Abbot and chairman of governors, Abbot Martin Shipperlee. Before becoming Abbot, he was a monk and a teacher of RE at the school, dating back to the 1970s. You will note at the start of the interview that the presenter makes it clear that the questions with the Abbot had been agreed in advance.

Listening to the interview, it is clear what has been ruled out of bounds, i.e. any discussion of why Pearce was not caught sooner, why he retired as headteacher when he did, why other paedophiles (such as John Maestri) were never reported by the school. The scope has been narrowly defined to the failure to properly supervise Pearce once it had been determined that he was a danger to children. This is the same scope as the "independent review" I told you of before.

The file is attached.

I have contacted the Sunday programme to advise them that to the best my knowledge there are material inaccuracies in Abbot Shipperlee's account. Whether the programme will follow the matter up I do not know. I have included my email to them below.

Since we last spoke, I have since learned that yet another teacher at the school may have been convicted of sexual abuse against pupils. His name is Mr James Piper, and my information is that he was convicted of some crime around 1990. I will be making enquiries about this and if I find out any more I will advise you. This now brings to six the total number of teachers against whom something has been reported - Pearce, Maestri, Hobbs, Chillman, Soper and now Piper. That is far too many for a single school. As a result of the articles in the Times, more victims have contacted me privately, and I regard it as a distinct possibility that more names will emerge.

With regard to Abbot Shipperlee's position, as Pearce's superior in the Abbey he was personally responsible for the day-to-day supervision of Pearce's "restricted ministry" to ensure that he was not a danger to pupils. When the risk assessment was made by the diocesan child protection officer, Mr Peter Turner, both Mr Turner and the Abbot must have agreed that it was safe for Pearce to remain at the Abbey under supervision, even though that meant that he was still living next door to the school. In any secular private school, it is unimaginable that a chair of governors could avoid being forced to resign by the other governors as a result of such a failure to protect the children in the school's care.

However, the governance arrangements for St. Benedicts School are that all the trustees of the charitable trust which runs the school and the Abbey are monks of the abbey under the authority of the Abbot. As trustees they are also school governors. It would appear that there is therefore no mechanism for obtaining the resignation of the chairman of governors, no matter how much his failures harm the children of the school. I am surprised that no concern with regard to this aspect of governance has been raised in past inspection reports.

Regards
Jonathan West

He was good enough to acknowledge more or less straight away.

From: Durell Barnes
Date: 21 April 2010
Subject: RE: Radio 4 programme
To: Jonathan West

Dear Mr West,

Thank you for the email below and attachment. I have noted and reported the additional name which has been mentioned. I am sorry that in haste I incorrectly added the adjective ‘former’ when writing of the abbot.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Durell

And there it stayed for quite a long time. Back in the beginning I had a list of 12 questions for him, and so far I've been providing the ISI with lots of of information they needed to know, and getting not a whole lot back in return. My questions were:

1. What notifications were the inspectors in possession of in respect of these cases at the time they carried out their November 2009 inspection of the school?
2. On what dates were those notifications made to the DCSF and on what dates were the notifications passed to the ISI?
3. Have any other notifications been made by the school to the DCSF in respect of any child protection issues since your January 2004 inspection? If so, on what date(s) were these notifications made, and on what dates were they passed to ISI?
4. What actions were taken in the course of the visit to inspect against the notifications?
5. What evidence was provided to the inspectors concerning the "independent review" referred to in the report?
6. Were the inspectors aware of the Statutory Inquiries which had been conducted by the Charity Commission?
7. Were the inspectors given access by the school to the correspondence with the Charity Commission, and the minutes of meetings between the Commission and the trustees in the course of the Statutory Inquiries?
8. Did the inspectors contact the Charity Commission in order to ascertain the scope of the Charity Commission's Inquiries and the outcome of their investigations?
9. What training in and qualifications in child protection did the inspector(s) specifically responsible for inspecting child protection policies have?
10. Did the inspectors recommend any further improvements to child protection procedures? If so, what recommendations were made?
11. What information was provided by the school to the inspectors concerning the "independent review" promised on October 2nd but not yet completed?
12. Have the inspectors requested written confirmation by the school on completion of any actions requested as a result of the inspection?

So after a while, I phoned him and said that it was really about time he got round to offering some kind of answer to my original questions, since neither I nor they were going to go away. In due course he provided the following reply.

from Durell Barnes
to Jonathan West
date 21 May 2010
subject Your enquiries


Dear Mr West,

Further to our last conversation, I understand that you would like fuller responses to your questions of 25th February than I gave in my email of 19th April.

With regard to questions 1-4 I don’t think I can add anything to the points made in April.

With regard to question 4 (and 11) I can confirm that the reporting inspector saw material relating to an independent review, but it was your contact with us which clarified that there had been more than one and that the reference to this in the report might be misleading to people who were aware of that fact.

With regard to questions 6 to 8 I can tell you that inspectors were unaware of the correspondence with and enquiries by the charity commission.

With regard to question 9 all reporting inspectors receive extensive training in regulatory compliance including regulations relating to safeguarding and child protection.

With regard to question 10 you are aware that a further visit has been made.

With regard to question 12 I don’t think there is anything to add to the points made in April.

I hope this is helpful. I know you will let me know if you have anything else to ask.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Durell

Now, this is rather unsatisfactory, and shows how parents cannot really rely on the ISI to ensure that child protection is properly addressed in schools they inspect, and moreover, you cannot tell from the inspections whether any weaknesses are being addressed.

Let's go through the questions in turn. Questions 1-4 are concerned with statutory notifications. By law, there are certain occasions on which a school is obliged to notify the Secretary of State for Education (or more recently the Independent Safeguarding Authority) of a school's concerns about a teacher. For instance, if a teacher has been dismissed (or has jumped before he would have been pushed) because of concerns about his suitability to work with children, a notification must be provided, describing the events, all the relevant correspondence, including written warnings and whatever.

But the DCSF and ISI between them are regarding all such Notifications as confidential, even in respect of people who have been convicted of criminal offences. So we cannot find out whether the school issued the notifications it was legally obliged to. And as a result we cannot know whether the ISI has obtained those Notifications, and therefore whether it has taken them into account with respect to its most recent or any previous inspections. Since we don't know what notifications have been issued and taken into account, we have no way of knowing whether the ISI has inspected the school in respect of weaknesses that permitted an abusive teacher to remain on site for a long period.

The answer to Questions 5 and 11 are interesting. Durell Barnes is suggesting that there has been a second "independent review" whose details were provided to the ISI, but which has never been published.

It would be nice to see that review, but I rather suspect it never happened. Remember, at the time all this correspondence occurred, the current version of the school's Child Protection Policy was dated 1st September 2009. I met the Abbot on 11th September 2009, and it is perfectly clear from the conversation we had that no review had by then been conducted, simply because he said that it hadn't occurred to him that a review was needed.

Questions 6-8 were about the Charity Commission Statutory Enquiries, about which the ISI say they were previously unaware. I find that astonishing, but I can just about believe that this is a matter of it simply not occurring to different government departments that they ought to advise each other of matters of common interest.

Durell Barnes has simply not answered Question 9. A blanket statement that all inspectors "receive extensive training" is not an answer to a question as to what specific training and qualifications had the inspector(s) responsible for reviewing child protection received.

Durell Barnes has also not answered Question 10. I asked what recommendations for further improvements had been made by the inspectors. He responded by saying the inspectors had visited again. True, but not an answer to my question!

And Durell Barnes simply didn't answer question 12, and didn't even make any serious attempt at it.

Parents: This is why you can't rely on the inspectorate. They won't tell you what or how much they know. They won't tell you whether there are weaknesses and what (if anything) they have required the school to do about it. They won't even tell you whether they have taken into account events at the school which are in the public domain, having been through the courts.

All I can do is hope that by bringing this to the attention of the ISI that they have done something about it. But based on the responses from Durell Barnes, for all I know it could all have been filed in the wastebasket and the inspectors are having a laugh with each other about these silly members of public who think the ISI ought to be checking child protection as part of their inspections.

If you want your child to be safe, you have to get involved and insist on proper procedures. As things stand, nobody will do it for you, and so if you leave it to others, your child is not safe.