Wednesday, 20 April 2011

Teacher B

In the complaint against the ISI, the school said the following about Teacher B.
12. [Teacher B] was employed at the School from 1st September 2007 and was suspended on 3rd December 2008 following written complaints from two groups of sixth form pupils on 1st and 3rd December 2008. He responded to the complaints by e-mail received on 5th December 2008 and subsequently, having sought advice from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, resigned on 18th December 2008. The Headmistress decided that under the statutory and guidance provisions then applicable referral was not required or appropriate.

After speaking to Mrs. Culligan, the Headmistress made inquiries of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and was informed that it was "up to her" whether or not she made a referral in respect of [Teacher B]. The Headmistress decided in all the circumstances to do so. The Headmistress subsequently informed Mrs. Culligan of these matters.
This is a masterpiece of obscurity. You have to admire the work of whoever drafted this document. We aren't told what the complaints were, and we aren't told whether the complaints were justified. We also aren't told whether Teacher B's email response contested the allegations. All that is stated is that the teacher subsequently resigned. On the basis of the information provided, we are in no position to make any judgement as to whether a referral to the Independent Safeguarding Authority was appropriate.

However, the ISI is aware of the nature of several allegations against teacher B. These include derogatory comments about women, refusing to allow a girl to go to the toilet, blocking her way and then presenting her with nappies and a dummy, saying he could have fathered lots of children, blocking and locking the door so girls had to reach round him, inappropriate remarks about his Nigerian girlfriend (who would do anything he
wanted), saying he would rather have AIDS than children, and other inappropriate comments including that he was looking for a girlfriend.

By any reasonable standard this is abusive and unprofessional behaviour for a teacher to display towards pupils, and offers a clear case for considering whether he is unfit to work with children and so should be placed on List 99. Such allegations should have been reported immediately to the LADO on coming to the school's notice, and should have been reported to the ISA within a month of the teacher's resignation. It would then be the job of the ISA to decide what action was needed.

However, the ISI established that a letter sent to Ealing Children's Services on 24th March 2010 (i.e. the second day of the first ISI visit, and over 2 years after the alleged incidents occurred) about Teacher B did not contain the complete story about the various allegations, and that a referral to the ISA was not made until after the ISI had visited. The ISI concluded that, contrary to what the school stated in its complaint, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that a referral should have been made.

It is a legal obligation for the school to make referrals within a month to the ISA concerning teachers who leave or are sacked when the school considers that they may be unfit to work with children. This is vitally necessary, so that if the teacher subsequently applies for a job elsewhere, CRB and List 99 checks will highlight the problem. Mrs Gumley Mason didn't do this.

So, we have here allegations of abuse by a member of staff towards pupils. It was not reported to the LADO at the time. An incomplete report was made to Children's Services after the matter was uncovered by the ISI, and a referral made to the ISA again only after the matter was uncovered by the ISI.

If the ISI had not uncovered this case during their inspection, there is no reason to think that any reports would have been made to anybody, no matter what the law requires.


  1. The whole scandalous truth is now emerging and it is shocking. There are more relevations to come as we still await the true facts on teacher A and more importantly Father Gregory Chillman.
    Why has Gumley Mason not already been sacked for gross misconduct ?
    Are the trustees and governors waiting to be totally humiliated before they take any action?
    Enough is enough they must act NOW

  2. Funny that teacher B, who is according to the Quote 'no longer in the country', was seen cycling in Ealing quite recently!

  3. Funny how teacher B was spotted in Ealing a few months ago, when according to the quote 'he is no longer in the country'. Perhaps being on another planet, you simply didn't see him!

  4. Dear Parents, teachers, trustees, governors, pupils,

    As you are beginning to see the truth coming out do those of you who support Mrs Gumley-Mason feel that perhaps you have made a mistake?

    As parents do we not have a right to know the true story? So much is available in the public domain that it will be difficult for her to cover up much more. Her credibility is declining fast. There is much more to come which will shake any vestiges of faith you have left.

    We still await answers to the questions asked at the parents' forum, if the information on this blog is correct. We do not yet know if how much of our hard-earned money has been spent on pointless legal action. People like Elizabeth Ovey do not come cheap. And how reassuring it is that you are being advised, at our expense, by an expert. Unfortunately an expert on Building Society law. Not so helpful in the field of safeguarding, I think. Although Ms Ovey does also work in the field of professinal negligence, so that may be of more relevance.(You see Mrs Gumley Mason you may control the information stream in your little school, but the big wide world of laws and rights and the Freedom of Information Act leaves you with nowhere to hide)

    The whole story will gradually and inexorably come to light. Bullying an 82 year old nun, who had given her life to the school, out of her home and her work, for example. Or covering up the sexual assault in the sixth-form kitchen, perhaps. Certainly there were gains to be had.

    How much of parents money has been spent on buying off victims of bullying?

    All will gradually be revealed and there will not be a single place to hide. The exposure will be total.

    The shame will be huge, and it is shame which is likely to be at the root of the behaviour. My colleague, a psychotherapist, will also offer ingights into the psychopathology of these patterns of behaviour.

    But all of that must wait until after Easter.

    For now I shall say no more. But what I have said, I have said.

  5. Well said 15:30, what is most disturbing is that it's all true.

  6. What a dreadful state of affairs why isn't anything being done to remove person/people who allowed this to happen? They obviously knew and are all trying to cover up the truth.
    Know wonder she tried to get a harrassment order to gag Mr West.

  7. It is rarely that I find a reason to disagree with most postings on this site however part of 15.30's posting is mistaken.

    Elizabeth Ovey is a chancery barrister, well used to wading through legislation and reports in order to get to grips with the facts. Remember this was to be a paper exercise, nothing more or less. What better discipline to employ on such matters than someone experienced in chancery?

    They tend to be people of ball aching detail, and where as you and I would pick up a pebble in the stone turning exercise, glance at it, and then throw it over our shoulder as useless - THEY look at it, see something in it, and indeed something in the space that it has left on the beach, and upon so little evidence decide to salami slice the pebble to find platinum.

    The choice was inspired, chancery barristers can drive you up the frigging wall but be assured, they are ideal for the role that was being proposed.

    This decision of counsel was of course nothing to do with Mrs Gumley Mason, but wise wisdom prevailed with the suggestion the case should be dropped.

  8. She did not counsel GM all that well then!
    But there again if she was not in possession of all the facts then she had an impossible task.It will be interesting to find out how much money was frittered away on that.

  9. 09.37, 15.30, I certainly agree that the whole legal expedition was foolhardy in the extreme, motivated only by a desire to conceal bad news that demonstrates that the head has not got a grip on the place in any positive sense.

  10. When are the board going to take action against the goss misconduct issues that have now been uncovered?
    How much longer can they hide their heads in the sand?

  11. The trustees and the board can bury their heads forever - believing the objectors and complainants will eventually give up and go away.

    It is far easier to ignore a problem than deal with it - the catholic church is not alone in being a perfect example of not dealing with safeguarding shortcomings. CSAS is a shambles. I expect those mentioned above will do next to nothing mistakenly believing the head can sort it out when she is the cornerstone of the problem.

  12. .
    Parents get the school they deserve. If the stay silent, then Que sera sera.

    Often they are their own worst enemies especially when it involves this subject because it is awkward to discuss (they think), they are uncertain of their ground (unsurprising, it's complicated), and they feel certain they will be made to look foolish if they decide to say anything.

    So they sit like mannequins in almost total naivety being sold pup after pup.


  13. And faced with silent parents the board and the trustees will convince themselves there is nothing to resolve, and they are soing a 'spledid' job.

    You are not!

    Get a grip, you are running an establishment that has, and continues to put the welfare of children at risk.

  14. 8.26 - I agree, but they are not up to speed with safeguarding, and are unlikely to recognise an effective safeguarding policy in which all readers can have confidence. So how do they start?

    The inspectorates won't help, the LSCB's are pretty useless often failing at critical points, the inspectorates will not advise, neither will the DfE, so schools are often left high and dry on a very sensitive and complex matter.

    I know of someone who is ideal in these circumstances and has all the necessary bona fides the trustees and the governors could wish for.

    I have posted here before. Via a specific google search, which I can never remember, you can see all my previous postings. If my proposal can assist, I would be pleased to hear via an email to Mr West addressed to my screen name. Thereafter we will deal directly.

    I hope this offer is taken in the spirit it is offered.

  15. That parents and young people posting comments to this blog as a whole feel the need to do so anonymously speaks volumes for their very real concerns about retribution on the part of school authorities and other interested parties.

    Prosper Keating
    (St Benedict's Survivor)

  16. 16.45
    You are correct if the great leader(NOT) were to get a wift of who we are our childrens lives would be made a misery.

  17. The school runs on fee income so if a significant number of dissatified parents organised themselves and withheld their fees, something would have to be done.

  18. st benedicts have paid not one single penny to any survivor. They paid Lord Carlile plenty because they were employing him to make them look clean. However all cheques come from their insurers. The insurers are very good at defending their own interests(even if that does involve assisting offenders) The real issue I feel is what insurer would insure a bunch of known pedos , to not offend?