A monk who had taught in the school a long time ago has recently come under investigation by social services. At the time of the follow-up visits he was living in the monastery under a restrictive covenant barring him from contact with children.I asked Mr Turner a set of questions questions about Chillman, to whch he was kind enough to offer replies.
1. On what date did he resign as a Trustee?
A. Fr Gregory resigned as a trustee of Ealing Abbey on 29 May 2010 (I later learned that this was an error, it was 29th March 2010.)
2. Did St Benedict's make a Referral to the Independent Safeguarding Authority within a month of his resignation?
A. No, because it was unnecessary he ceased to be a trustee because he was no longer on the Abbot’s Council.
3. If not, was a Referral subsequently made, once the issue had been raised by the ISI?
A. A referral was made to the ISA in October 2010.
4. On what date and for what reason did he resign as Chaplain of St. Augustine's Priory School?
A. Due to age & ill health he resigned on 3 October 2010.
5. On what date and for what reason did he resign as Chairman of Governors of St. Augustine's Priory School?
A. As (4) above.
6. In the last 5 years has he been a governor of any other schools? If he is still a governor, please list the schools of which he is a governor. For any where he has resigned as a governor within the last 5 years, please give the school, the date and the reason.
A. Fr Gregory was a governor of the Gunnersbury School, but gave up that role some time ago.
7. What are the terms of the restrictive covenant referred to in the ISI report?
A. Fr Gregory has no public ministry.
8. Is the restrictive covenant mentioned in the ISI report still in force on the same terms?
A. Yes
9. If the restrictive covenant has been modified or cancelled, please indicate the date on which this occurred, and the reasons for the change.
A. N/A.
10. Is Father Gregory Chillman still resident at Ealing Abbey?
A. Yes
This was very interesting to me, because it is at odds with information that has previously been provided by St. Benedict's. At the safeguarding meeting with parents last September, I understand that although Chillman wasn't mentioned by name, this bit of the ISI report was raised, and the Abbot and Headmaster assured parents that "almost all" the restrictions had been lifted. The implication seems to have been that there was in investigation, the allegations were without foundation, and therefore almost all the restrictions have been lifted. But according to the information from Peter Turner, this is not true. The restrictions on Father Gregory Chillman remain in force on the same terms that applied at the time of the ISI inspection in April 2010.
The ISI Supplementary Report on St. Benedict's included the following as Recommendation 1.
1. Ensure that any staff or members of the religious community live away from the school, if they are subject to allegations of misconduct related to safeguarding or convicted of wrongdoing.After a good deal of kicking and screaming, and extensive correspondence with the ISI and the DfE, this recommendation was eventually carried out with respect to Father Stanislaus Hobbs, who no longer lives at Ealing Abbey. But it hasn't been carried out with respect to Father Gregory Chillman, who remains at Ealing Abbey living under restricted covenant. The ISI criticised the use of restrictive covenants, since they had already failed to prevent abuse occurring at Ealing Abbey.
And then there is the issue of St. Augustine's School. Father Gregory Chillman remained chaplain and Chairman of Governors of St. Augustine's School for several months after he was placed on restricted covenant and denied any public ministry.
Did the trustees of St. Augustine's (including the Bishop of Arundel & Brighton) know that their chairman of governors had been put on restricted ministry?
If they didn't know, then Chillman himself was almost certainly breaching the terms of his restrictive covenant by remaining in the post. And I find it inconceivable that Abbot Martin Shipperlee didn't know about Chillman's role at St. Augustine's, and so he should have informed the St. Augustine's Trustees himself, and ought to have required Chillman's resignation.
If the St. Augustine's Trustees did know about Chillman's restrictive covenant and did nothing for several months, then they chose to retain the services of Chillman as chaplain and Chairman of Governors when they knew he had been placed on restricted covenant and barred from access to children. Negligence towards the safety of the pupils seems about the kindest interpretation that could be put on this.
The ISI inspected St. Augustine's in March 2010, with a follow-up visit in May. This overlaps with the supplementary inspection visits to St. Benedict's which took place on 30th April and 17th May. The ISI were definitely aware of the connection between the schools through Father Gregory Chillman, because I told them. It is inconceivable that the ISI, in the course of their inspection visits and subsequent correspondence, made no mention to St. Augustine's of Chillman's restrictive covenant and his unsuitability for the role. And yet he remained in place.
Unfortunately the school thinks it's above the law and answerable to no one.
ReplyDeleteThe Governors and Trustees all need to stand down for allowing this to happen.
So, let's get this straight.
ReplyDeleteMrs Gumley Mason - Headteacher and Designated Safeguarding Teacher for St Augustine's Priory School - allowed Fr Gregory Chillman to officiate at the school carol concert in December knowing that he was on a restricted ministry because of child protection concerts and the governors and trustees either didn't know or didn't care.
Is that about right?
12.40 - yes that's about right, but also don't forget the safeguarding failures in the ISI report including the CRB checking or lack of it fiasco.
ReplyDeleteIt has also been mentioned on this blog before about "the kitchen incident" where Gregory was under suspicion.
When is everybody going to see the problems with Gumley Mason and face up to the fact that she should not be in her position and should have had diciplinary action taken against her months ago.
I am sure there are many more skeletons in this closet so something needs to be done now.
What are the trustees and governors doing?
Gumley Mason is continuing to be paid a very handsome salary out of our school fees for doing am incompetent job.
ReplyDeleteSome official body who will deal with the gross negligence which has occurred needs to step in and deal with the people responsible.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen in a state school? I can't imagine they would allow this circus to carry on.
Will Mrs Gumley ever take responsibility for the errors she has made safeguarding our children. How does she get away with it?
ReplyDeleteShe has broken the law.
St Augustine's do not need to be recruiting a new Deputy Head, they should be looking for replacements for the following :-
ReplyDeleteA new Chair of Governors
A new Chair of Trustees
A new Head
All of these people are personally responsible for the catalogue of failures and horrendous safeguarding issues that have come to light.
They should all be fired immediately as they have let pupils, staff and parents down with their sickening behaviour.
These responses from Turner demonstrate errors in the current ISI report for St Augustine's. People will eventually understand the ISI is not a safeguarding literate inspectorate. One only has to look at the outcome of the two inspections of St Benedict's to see the incompetence of the inspectorate on these matters. A load of educationalists pretending to have expertise in social welfare!
ReplyDeleteIt is reckless, but while the DfE permits the farce of educationalists inspecting safeguarding, childrens welfare is compromised. I'm all for cleaners doing airframe inspections, and building surveys by tree preservation officers. This is the equivalence of the foolishness.
When is she going to stand down? Ultimately it was her responsibility and she needs to be held responsible for her failings. No other establishment would allow someone who failed on such a grand scale to remain in office,
ReplyDeletewhy and how is she getting away with it?
Why is no one doing anything about the school and its leaders, the laws to protect children aren't worth the paper they are written on. The designated Head of Safeguarding has broken the law, why has she not been taken to task.
ReplyDeleteThe situation at the school is ridiculous and unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteThe Trustees and Governors are now looking more ridiculous than the incompetent Head due to their failure to take any action.
I hope that representatives from the Trustees and the Governors are attending the open day and I also hope they will have good answers to the irrate parents questions.
Mrs Gumley obviously likes the humiliation and everyone discussing her failures has she no conscience, she needs to resign or be asked to leave.
ReplyDeleteLets see the incompetent fools that are the Trustees and Governors do their jobs.
18.52 - Incompetent fools do not know what to do - that is why they are incompetent fools. Dither and fiddle - that all they seem capable of doing. I regret being ageist about this but safeguarding to 'that' generation means nothing - its a lot of noise about something that does not happen - except it does!
ReplyDeleteSo they will remain convinced that no action is the best action - unable and unwilling to acknowledge that the school is in trouble thanks to captain calamity.
I am confused.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Peter Turner, (Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor), Father Gregory was placed under a restrictive covenant banning him from any public ministry and this covenant still remains in force on the same terms.
At St Benedict's Safeguarding Meeting in September of last year, parents were told that "almost all" of the restrictions had been lifted.
Perhaps Abbot Martin would be kind enough to clarify matters with a letter to parents.
Who ultimately is responsible for the hiring and firing at St.Augustine's?
ReplyDeleteThey are not doing their job, or are they just oblivious too the goings on at the school?
18.12 11 June said "Some official body who will deal with the gross negligence which has occurred needs to step in and deal with the people responsible.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen in a state school? I can't imagine they would allow this circus to carry on."
Well the answer is depressingly simple. There is no single body to step in and that includes the DfE. Safeguarding law is non-existent in real terms other than grand meaningless statements which lead to the ‘guidance.’ As a result of it being guidance large swathes of it can be ignored. An example is St Augustine's ignoring the London and Ealing Safeguarding guidelines to report all allegations of abuse to the LADO (15.2.1). What can be done about this - nothing? The only people that can do anything about the school ignoring this is parents. It must be understood that unless the school undertakes to report all allegations of abuse to the LADO it needs do nothing about the incident. Such action puts parents and child on a difficult legal footing with the case.
As with many private settings parents are scared to speak out because there is no competition in education, and a school losing a few pupils whose parents are perceived to be troublemakers can further menace parents into silence. So parents tend to say nothing mistakenly believing “it can’t happen to us and ours.” Parents often leap to the defence of an institution when abuse arises within a setting, no matter how ‘off the rails’ it is. It is a most odd reaction – we’ve seen a few St Augustine’s parents of this mold. Cheerleader parents are exceptionally bad news for their children because they immediately increase the potential risk to the wellbeing and safety of their child/ren as a consequence of heir foolishness which they mistakenly believe will get then ‘brownie’ points with the school executive. Children of cheerleader parents are often targeted by perpetrators because these children are the lowest fruit.
The DfE believes parents who send their children to private schools are ‘on their own.’ You would not expect the government to be involved in your purchase of a faulty television set – so why do you expect some ‘official’ body to become involved with a school at which the head has become dysfunctional? It is not going to happen – the only people who can sort this out is parents. I did it single handed at the school my children attended when I got rid of the chairman of the board of governors. It was difficult, ill-tempered, but it had to be done. I involved no one else because quite simply I could not be bothered to explain it to disbelieving parents, it would have been a waste of time as they were a collection of middle class amoeba’s who could not recognise a spine.
In a maintained school the situation is different, not least because the owners of the school are the Local Authority, although the governors still run schools. There are different dynamics in these settings which generally assist a more honest and compliant approach to safeguarding. I have experience of both, and prefer the maintained structure although it is still far from excellent.
The Designated Officer for child protection has driven a coach and horses through the guidance. Guidance does not have to be followed because it is not mandatory. Safeguarding guidance is a smörgåsbord for schools, and if you don't like it you can ignore it providing of course you are conforming to your duty of keeping children safe whatever this woolly and opaque crap really means. The safeguarding framework was assembled by academics from the medical profession and the current framework stems from a 1985 report to Ministers titled A Review of Childcare Law written by the Department of Health and Social Security. The author provides the clue for the bias in the dysfunctional child protection "law" that exists. It's daft with very few redeeming features - its way past its sell by date and of little practical use today.
ReplyDeleteSo - the current Head who is also the Designated Officer has ignored a great deal of the guidance, as has the Chairman of the board of Trustees who ultimately is responsible for safeguarding as the "proprietor" of the school. The Governors per se are pretty irrelevant in all this - except they may have a delegated role, but Mr Murphy cannot delegate his statutory responsibilities.
But where Mrs Gumley Masson most certainly has broken the law is the non-referral of staff to the ISA. Here is the point that should be jumped upon by the DfE - but it is at this point that we discover the DfE and safeguarding law is nothing more than a mirage. I have written to the DfE about this subject of failing to refer to the ISA (of which St Benedict’s were also serially guilty) - there is nothing it can do about this law being breached, they have no power, there is no precedent for action. All it can do is place the school under a (written) undertaking to report all future incidents to the LADO, and a guarantee that the school will refer all appropriate (under the ‘harm test’ of SVGA2006) incidents to the ISA.
This undertaking is requested by the DfE, and the school writes confirming the undertaking to the Insdependent Schools team at the DfE. But of course the foolishness of this piece of theatrical nonsense is that no one can police the undertaking if it is unpublicised in the schools safeguarding policy and there is no requirement for the school to publish the undertaking! So inspectors and parents are left uninformed about the undertaking and of course it is parents who are meant to hold the school to account. What will the DfE do about this farce – NOTHING!
I am aware of a school that was placed under an undertaking, it was not publicised, and 18 months after it was given the school failed to report an incident to either the police or social services, but it did return a Notification (as it was termed at the time) to the DfE (as was the policy at that time.)
The undertaking said – following an incident the member of staff will be suspended pending the outcome ofg an investigation by police and/or social services.
What did the DfE do for this breach? Absolutely nothing and they did not discover the breach for three years.
You are on your own parents. Safeguarding isn’t working.
.
ReplyDeleteLeat who was today sentenced to a minimum of eitht years for child sexual abuse, was able to abuse girls at his school for five years without being discovered.
The Head has been suspended while a serious case review is underway.
Were all his target children stupid not to have spoken? Absolutely not.
Almost all parents flatter themselves that their child would tell them if something happened. In all liklihood they would not tell you - you are fooling yourselves if you think otherwise.
Abuse can happen to anyone - except everyone thinks it happens to someone else and therefore there is no need to question a school.
The people who now know this not to be the case are the parents of children at Leat's former pupils at Hillside First School, Weston Super-Mare.
GM has been very busy sending out invites to the Centenary Garden Party at the school on the 25th June. Announcements have even been placed in Church bulletins. All past and current pupils invited.I recall when you could only attend an event if you received a personal invite from the school.
ReplyDeleteLooks like she just wants a crowd, so I expect her usual manipulation of the press and a photographer or two no doubt. With her head in the sand, she will glory in the event, which she will use to 'gloss over' her total incompetence.
She can hold a party, yet refuses to address her horrendous lack of safeguarding procedures for our children.
Feckless & reckless.
We refuse to go. By turning up it would appear that we support her outrageous behaviour and we most certainly do not. Will not be part of her recruitment drive. We will NOT be manipulated into giving the appearance that everything is OK at the school - because it simply isn't!
Get in touch with me. I was at St Benedict's school from 1949 to 1956, and remember both Chillman and Hobbes as young monks. I am gathering evidence to send to Cardinal Burke in Rome to justify Daphne McLeod's accusation, as founder of Pro Ecclesia, that the English hierarchy is "obdurate" about not teaching the faith.
ReplyDelete17:08. Please email me at jonathanwest22@googlemail.com so I can get in touch.
ReplyDeleteAny correspondence will of course be kept confidential.
Is Father Gregory Chillman the only monk resident at Ealing Abbey who is currently under a restricted covenant or are there others?
ReplyDeleteIn view of all that has been revealed, nothing would surprise me.
Everyone should boycott her Garden Party it is all about marketing for her school. She has no compassion and certainly doesn't care about the girl's in her care, this is obvious by her not having proper safeguarding procedures in place.
ReplyDeleteShe uses our money for a futile court case to protect herself, CRB checks weren't in place and Father Gregory being at the school, when he shouldn't be.
Could we have a breakdown of the costs of her party, I see very little too celebrate.
I for one hope our school fees are not contributing towards her party, I could think of better ways the money could be spent.
ReplyDeleteWhy should our money be spent on incompetent fools playing happy families.
It will be all the same people as usual the Trustees, Governors and other misguided fools talking nonsense and telling Gumley Mason how wonderful she is.
Celebrations will happen when she resigns, until then there is very little to celebrate, surely she must realise it is totally inappropriate to hold a party after the way she has conducted herself.
ReplyDeleteJust a foot-note:
ReplyDeleteDuring the academic year 1986-1987 Dom Gregory was Headmaster of St Benedict's School. That as you will recall was the year before Dr Dachs was appointed and the year after Dom Antony Gee stepped down.
Would Abbot Francis (now Prior) explain what was going on in his Community during 1982-1985 please.
If Dom Gregory was a Governor at the Gunnersbury School I assume the Abbot has informed the Board of Governors of Dom Gregory's behaviour and they have publicly called for former pupils to come forward to report any untoward behaviour from Dom Gregory.
ReplyDeleteOr does Ealing consider Gunnersbury its lower, lower middle class state comp. poor relation?
Maybe we need to start calling for ex pupils of St. A's also to come forward, so that reports like the "kitchen incident" etc can be out in the open. Gumley Mason is never going to come clean about the complaints about Chillman, so this is the only place to let people know what actually went on.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteHow many students are leaving St A's this term in order to transfer to other schools?
Definitely NOT going to her party. What a nerve she has!
ReplyDeleteI think people will be shocked at the number of pupils who are leaving, who can blame them, parents have had enough of being controlled and lied to by a Head who thinks she is above the law, and it is beneath her to speak to parents.
ReplyDeleteShe does nothing but intimidate and bully parents we can't stand up to her as she will tell you if you don't like it there are other schools, or our children will be victimised.
Interesting to see how many fools actually turn up to her party, the usual suspects no doubt who think she is the best thing since sliced bread, when are people going to wake up and realise what she has done.
ReplyDeleteShe has deceived us lied to us tried to cover up her wrong doings, has she no shame, how can she show her face and host a celebratory Garden Party after what she has done to the school?
The whole situation is a disgrace and I think it is in very bad taste her holding a party. She will be selective of who will be allowed in, her husband will be on the gate vetting the guests like he has done before, refusing ex pupils who went to other local schools from attending the firework display, so petty it's unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteThe usual sycophants will turn up no doubt. They also have their collective heads stuck in the sand. Maybe should call it the 'Ostrich Party'.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is because so many parents are taking their children out of the school that she has extended the garden parties invite to - well, frankly anyone who will turn up. It's become almost like 'rent a crowd' Doesn't the security bother her?!
ReplyDeleteI guess not, she just wants photographs (of our children) on the web site and will use them to promote the school in order to recruited more fools ops I mean pupils!
I am horrified by what I have been reading.
ReplyDeleteFor about six months St Augustine's had a Chairman of Governors (Fr Gregory), who was a banned from contact with children and not allowed any public ministry. To make matters worse, the same individual was also the School's RC Chaplain.
This is almost beyond belief, St Augustine's is clearly some sort of mad house. It is staggering to think that people actually pay money to send their daughters there.
You got it in one the school is a mad house run by two people who think they are above the law.
ReplyDeleteI am embarrassed to say i actually pay to send my daughters there, what a terrible injustice I have done them. Will be moving them as soon as possible.
You couldn't pay me to go to her Garden Party I couldn't think of a more boring way to spend my weekend watching her parade around giving lip service to the moronic parents who will go and feed her ego, hoping that their daughters will get special treatment in return for their support. Well more fool them they have a lot to learn!
ReplyDeleteWhat at an absolute disgrace, the woman is the most manipulative person going what on earth is she doing at the school? She is not fit for the purpose she has failed the children, parents and damaged the reputation of the school.
ReplyDeleteThe school is now a laughing stock, will it ever recover from the negative press it has received because of one person. i am so relieved my daughter leaves this term.
ReplyDeleteThank you Mr West, reading your blog has stopped me from making a dreadful mistake sending my daughter to St. Augustine's.
ReplyDeleteNot only money mad and power drunk but misguided and incapable of telling the truth. Add the lack of a teaching degree and a predeliction for employing 'chauncey' gardners and I do not understand what she is doing as head of a school.
ReplyDeleteAnd my comments are not speculation, they are evidence based thanks to this blog which is nothing if not detailed.
Sycophantic behaviour will get your daughter - what exactly? Head girl, deputy, sports captain...Did you ever see such a small school that has such a long list of 'school officials' (and deputy heads)? GM exploits these types of parents, taking advantage of their naivety. She cares not a jot for your daughter and even less for you.
ReplyDeleteHere here couldn't agree more, I think a lot of parents are actually seeing the light and are beginning to realise the head is not what they thought.
ReplyDeleteHow can someone who doesn't have the correct qualifications actually be Head of a school, has she done any training, and also WHO was responsible for writing the failed Child Protection Plan?
ReplyDeleteWho is paying for the aptly named "Ostrich Party?'
ReplyDeleteDo you have to buy tickets for her garden party or is it a free for all?
ReplyDeleteLatest communication from the school say, 'that sport and after school activities were firmly in the lead", to be discussed at the next parent forum. This is hard to believe, there are many more serious topics which need to be out in the open, and parents supposedly want to talk about sport. You couldn't make this up she must think we are all half wits.
ReplyDeleteGarden Party, who does she think she is the Queen with her husband as consort! The arrogance and conceit of the women; there is nothing to be celebrated for her term in Office, she has not one ounce of remorse for the way she has conducted herself.
ReplyDeleteCentenary garden party and only 250 acceptances, doesn't that speak volumes?
ReplyDeleteHow can someone who doesn't have the correct qualifications actually be Head of a school
ReplyDeleteStrange though it may seem, there is no obligation on a private school to employ qualified teachers. State schools must employ qualified teachers, but private schools are exempt from this requirement.
Mrs Gumley Mason was appointed having had (as far as I am aware) no teaching qualification and no previous teaching experience, her previous career was in journalism and broadcasting. This is all perfectly legal and above board.
Whether it was in the best interest of the school to appoint a headteacher with no previous teaching experience is something I will leave to your judgement.
If you take into account the way she has conducted herself recently, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the school.
ReplyDeleteIt incredulous that there are two different sets of rules when it comes too the teaching and welfare of children, surely there should be a set of guidelines that all schools adhere to regardless if you are paying for it.
It is unbelievable, so people who think they are giving their children a better start in life for choosing to pay for their education, are in some cases doing anything but!
ReplyDeleteObviously paying for an education is no guarantee that your children will be receiving superior teaching, this has all been such an eye opener.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways I feel we have been misled. Anyone involved with children should have the relevant qualifications, I wonder how many teachers at St. Augustine's could get a job in the state sector?
What a waste of money, unbelievable!
ReplyDelete£5 a ticket for the 'Ostrich Party', cup of coffee or tea included in the price! You can have a guided tour, and ask Mrs GM were the Nuns went!
ReplyDeleteWhat a fun way to spend your afternoon Yawn Yawn.
19.48 - you and others are consistently missing the point.
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be an effective legislative framework to protect children which puts mandatory reporting of allegations to the LADO - and mandatory reporting of actual abuse to the police.
Neither currently exist in the UK other than in Northern Ireland which has prescriptive child protection in education. The Department of Education in NI issues the policy that is to be followed by schools - everybody understands it and knows where to find it.
"Guidelines" by their definition can be adopted or rejected. Compulsory guidelines are a contradiction in terms and such fudges need to be removed from the landscape..
The quicker we get to mandatory reporting and prescriptive child protection policies, the quicker we rid ourselves of situations like St Benedict's and St Augustine's which are fare from unique in the independent education landscape.
This is not a religious issue - it is quite another matter which I will raise here in future.
Grimersta makes valid points. St Augustine's needs a well constructed policy, clearly committing to 15.2.1. of the London SCB policy of which Ealing SCB is a member. This states - All allegations must be reported to the LADO.
ReplyDeleteA school's safeguarding policy is a written undertaking to parents. If the school fails to perform to the undertakings it gives in the policy it is you the parents who need to bring the administration to account. There is no one else.
Ultimately it is Mr Murphy the chairman of trustees who is legally responsible for safeguarding at St Augustine's. If parents fail to hold the school to account then you end up with the school you deserve.
I hear that another teacher has left St Augustine's. A very good teacher in the Senior school. What a shame. Yet FGM will party on...
ReplyDeleteWhich other teacher has left?
ReplyDeleteWho can blame them for leaving I couldn't work in a place with such a dreadful atmosphere, I just wonder how many more good teachers will leave.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell us which teacher is going.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteParty party party!!!!!!!
FGM - "Did you say ChillOUT?"
Parent - "No! ChillMAN!"
FGM - "oH ChillIN .... I am!!! - party + party + party + MANUMISSION 2011 Ibiza here I come !!!!"
17.43
ReplyDeleteWhat is that about you lost me.
I definitely will not attend the 'Ostrich party'. Couldn't resist the temptation to ask her to explain her asinine behaviour. She may well be flanked by 'the gardeners' - Oooo scary
ReplyDeleteShe will be flanked by her burly gardeners! I hope it rains all day and her Ostrich Party will not be in the fields,
ReplyDeleteShe doesn't deserve nice weather and I think she knows it after the way she has behaved.
Mrs Gumley dressed like she's going to Manumission every day!
ReplyDelete18.05 - it's your age.
ReplyDeleteI think she should do her own fashion line!
ReplyDeleteThe Devil wears Primark!
ReplyDeleteI think the V & A would be interested in some of her vintage outfits and her wig.
ReplyDeleteAnd gets into trance whenever she can! The fashion - oh the fashion - Lady GAGA on sanatogen. But it is party time next week when adrenaline of your hostess will 'get the party started!'
ReplyDeleteForeverfaithless!
Which teacher have you heard is leaving.
ReplyDeletedon't care how she dresses, I am more concerned with her failings in Child Protection measures. She is paid over £127.000 p.a. yet she is much more interested in her 'Ostrich Party' than in the welfare of our children. She disgusts me. She refuses to address her gross negligence or discuss Chillman - how much longer can the deceit go on?
ReplyDeleteIts all about image with her, as far as she is concerned no one is as intelligent as her she thinks we are all stupid.
ReplyDeleteBy saying that parents want to discuss sports clubs at the next Parental Forum, when the truth about Father Gregory has just been revealed speaks volumes.
She should be informing parents what she is going to do about the latest allegations, no instead we get letters and emails promoting her 'Ostrich Party' the woman is deluded she hopes we will all focus on her party and forget about the dreadful things she has allowed to happen in her school.
I for one think her party is in very bad taste, it should be cancelled so she can focus on whats really important Children's Safety.
The deceit will go on forever she is surrounded by yes men and woman who haven't got a back bone between them.
ReplyDeleteShe never answers questions raised, she lies, she bullies, she intimidates, and this woman is supposed to be a role model for our children.
How she can show her face at social gatherings is beyond me does she feel no shame at the way she behaves?
The deceit will go on forever she thinks she is the law and untouchable, and the most arrogant person you will ever have the misfortune of meeting.
ReplyDeleteShe gets away with all her wrong doings by diverting attention away from herself and holding stupid parental forum meetings on sport and promoting her Ostrich Party! She hopes parents will think that every things ok and been dealt with. Well it is far from ok and nothing as usual has been dealt with.
I've heard that a parent proposes selling rose petals in convenient packets on the public footpath on the day of the party. These quite obviously are for cheerleader parents who wish to prepare the path that the dear leader will take during her walkabout at the party.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't put it past the cheerleader parents they actually need to a get a life. They are so embroiled in the school they've forgotten their is a life outside the school gates.
ReplyDeleteThey need to take off their rose tinted spectacles and see what's really going on. Don't they realise she is laughing at their stupidity she doesn't appreciate anything they do for her, I doubt she's ever even thanked them, she thinks it her right to have people idolise her and run around like headless chicken.
Why has St Augustine's garden party been named the Ostrich Party?
ReplyDeleteIs it because Mrs Gumley Mason has her head permanently buried in the sand?
Yes, the name" Ostrich Party' so much more fitting.
ReplyDeleteThe party will be attended by all her loyal followers The Trustees and The Governors who all have their heads in the sand.
The consequence of heads in the sand is arses in the air which presents an opportunity to give them a kick.
ReplyDeletePrecisely!
ReplyDeleteSo 22.29, if I were a parent I would be in attendance to do precisely that.
ReplyDeleteAnd the two I would round on are Murphy and Hemmingway.
Murphy - appears utterly derelict in his responsibility for safeguarding, mistakenly believing his role has nothing to do with the operation of the school. The law says he is responsible for effective safeguarding in the place.
Hemmingway - seems to have got herself into a complete pickle and is now part of the problem and can no longer ever be part of the solution. She is complicit in some of the wrongs including not holding the headmistress to account, and she knows it. Why has she been so useless in this regard? Well therein lays the reason she has become complicit. The ‘sham’ governors serve no purpose for parents and need to be removed.
So while all those responsible for the mess that passes itself off as a ‘loving, caring, (pass me the sick bag) green oasis in which to educate children’ are swanning around in one place, it’s an opportunity to stand on their toecaps and tell them what’s wrong, and what you want to see done. Not attending is a cop out!
Personally – I’d be there
I have posted here before, and told you I personally fought and achieved the removal of the chairman of the board of governors at my children’s prep school. It was all about safeguarding. Was I popular? Well you can imagine. Were my children prejudiced by my actions? Absolutely not. I put everything in writing immediately after each conversation, so if my children had been prejudiced by my actions, life for the board and the school would have got very nasty. Newspaper articles about a bullying board of governors being complicit in staff bullying my children as a result of dispute over safeguarding would have seen their waiting list vanish.
There are always many more (lame) reasons for parents to do nothing, there is one reason for standing and speaking – as you will see on BBC1 @ 10.35 on Tuesday 21st June.
Anne Evans (Hemingway) was chosen by FGM as being a suitable governor, so is just another ineffectual sycophant - nice but useless!
ReplyDeleteFGM will NOT let anyone near her at the 'Ostrich Party' other than the usual sycophants. She will not give you the opportunity to address the many important issues that desperately need answers. She will get her photos, use the media and then simply disappear!
So typical of her, important issues should be discussed at the Parents Forum, supposedly parents want to talk about sport clubs, this is absolute nonsense she has decided what the topic should be to divert attention away from herself, the more serious topic of her failings.
ReplyDeleteTwo new Governors have been appointed, supposedly based on a parental vote, I am sure they have been elected because of their usefulness to GM.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world we should be able to take on The Board of Governors to get them removed, but unfortunately as anyone would know if they have dared to make waves, your children would be subtly bullied by the staff who support the Leader.
ReplyDeleteThis has happened before and the only ones to suffer are your children, the only choice available is to say nothing and remove your child from the school.
This school is like no other, unless you have had dealings with them you will not understand.
Anne Hemmingway needs to do her job, why did she except the position and then just stand back and allow GM to do as she pleases, another yes woman.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world we should be able to take on The Board of Governors to get them removed, but unfortunately as anyone would know if they have dared to make waves, your children would be subtly bullied by the staff who support the Leader.
ReplyDeleteThere is a way round this, which will make them hesitate to do that.
Everything you raise, you raise in writing, or at the very least you sent a letter confirming the conversation immediately afterwards. NO EXCEPTIONS! Everything must go on the record.
At the end of each letter, you say something to the effect of "I trust that raising this matter will have no adverse effect on the treatment my daughter receives at the school."
If there is any adverse effect, then you write immediately to FGM, with copies to the chairman of Governors and the Chairman of Trustees, complaining about the treatment, and stating that it must cease immediately, or you will take advice as to legal action to be taken against the school. I think you will find that they soon back down.
Mr West reaffirms my posting at 09.24 where I explained my protocols when communicating with the board and the head of my children's prep school.
ReplyDeleteAs I also said there are a million reasons to do nothing - do nothing and your children might well suffer, and you will be unlikely to hear of their sufferings - ever! That's just how it is - I speak from experience not theory.
I also tackled my son's public school and changed their safeguarding policy which fudged the reporting of allegations, but otherwise was an excellent policy.
The power is in fact in your hands - if you allow the school to dictate the agenda then all you will ever do is write on this blog - but no improvement will be seen.
No more excuses for not speaking to the administration - you have a huge number of reasons to speak to them because they are presently giving you very little of the complete picture.
Does anyone know how too obtain the names and addresses of the governors and trustees,
ReplyDeleteIn fact 12.24 you can put it another way.
ReplyDeleteIf your child was booked on a trip and the coach driver was pissed, would you pull him off the coach and get the company to replace him?
If the answer is that you would not dare because the coach driver was menacing, then you have stopped being a parent.
What is the difference?
The different being one coach driver who doesn't know you or your child against an establishment that does.
ReplyDeleteI see the logic and children should be protected at all costs.
Another important email sent to parents, this time regarding Sport's Day, and the very exciting (NOT) news that they are holding a race called 'Catch the Train', thank goodness we have been informed about this earth shattering bit of news.
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable we are being kept in the dark about about every other aspect of the goings on in the place and receive news on such trivia.
There is always an excuse to do nothing.
ReplyDeleteOh - and the coach driver drives for the company that is owned by the head's sister, which is contracted annually by the school despite never having to competitively tender.
If you and other parents take no action you are abrogating your parental responsibilities.
13.13 - Trustees - go to companies house site and search for St Augustine's priory. Purchase annual return for £1. That provides you with n/a for all trustees.
ReplyDeleteFor Governors - write via the school or use 192.com if you are determined to write to their homes. Have name + initials + 'ish' idea of area.
Hope this assists.
13:13
ReplyDeleteI have the names and addresses, from when I wrote to the Trustees and Governors in march. I'm not going to publish them, but if you want to email me I can provide them.
11:22 My understanding was that FGM had suggested that the EXISTING governors elect 2 parents as governors. I sincerely hope that was not the case.
ReplyDeleteSycophants choosing 2 more 'USEFUL' parents, just spells disaster! Election of parents should have followed the proper procedures - but I guess we all know her attitude on that score. Just another FGM manipulation exercise it seems.
I just want to see which sycophants will be fawning all over the GM's at the 'Ostich Party' - so that I can give them a very w i d e berth in future!
ReplyDeleteWe will be going to the Filming at the Global Smurfs Day Event at the O2 on Saturday. Sounds like more fun than the 'Ostrich Party'. Will be nice & dry and not a sycophant in sight!
ReplyDeleteFGM has selected all the governors and trustees, that is why nothing will ever be done. She will just continue to manipulate everyone and get away with it. Until someone is smart enough I fear the parents just don't have a chance of ever getting justice and protection for their children. I truly despair I really do.
ReplyDeleteIf you are St Augustine parents, why do you say the new governors were chosen by the headmistress or the current governors? They were not. Each parent received a ballot. Are you saying the school paid postage on all those ballots, received them back, then binned them and chose their own people? You must be such bitter, bitter people.
ReplyDeleteWell 12.53 this will undoubtedly come true if you and the other parents fail to do anything to face down the circumstances your children face.
ReplyDeleteTalking here does good only to a point but there is a time when action needs to replace talk and the only people to do that are parents.
What is not needed is two parents on the board. Two more inexperienced people on a board of uselessness is not going to achieve anything. What is needed are two genuinely independent people, one from an educational background, the other from a safeguarding background. Additionally, one parent governor needs to be appointed, and at my children's prep school candidates were nominated by parents and then had to campaign for votes. There was a ballot vote, and the results were verified independently of the school.
All this was put together by parents when they finally grasped the nettle.
Yes unfortunately you are right the two new Governor's supposedly voted in by parents, this is as likely as Gumley Mason telling the truth, what are their professions I wonder??
ReplyDeleteShe is the Master of manipulation and avoidance, she the most arrogant person I have ever had the misfortune to meet.
14.19
ReplyDeleteWe are not bitter people , just realistic you have a lot to learn.
Nothing is black and white at St. Augustine's open your eyes we have been lied to there is no democratic process why should the election of new governors be any different?
Have you read the blog if not I suggest you do and you will see how we have been manipulated.
14:19 Do you really believe that FGM had no say in who was elected? 14:21 is absolutely correct, that is how most schools operate. Everything above board. Let's face it - that is never going to happen with FGM on board!
ReplyDelete14.19, you are correct, all we parents received a vote for the 2 new governors and I very much doubt that Gumley Mason would have been allowed to rig it, so we can presume thats it was a fair vote.
ReplyDeleteHowever your comments about bitter, bitter people are not welsome at all. Gumley Mason has lied, manipulated parents, failed in her safeguarding duties, allowed a priest who was under a restrictive covenant and goodness knows what else that is still to come out. No wonder parents are bitter. If you are indeed a parent you should also be very bitter and disappointed at the way she has behaved. After all her salary is paid out of our fees so it is not acceptable that she has been allowed to continue.
14.19
ReplyDeleteWe are not bitter parents just realistic you need to take a reality check if you are not sure why we are concerned here's a list.
She tried to cover up her failings
She used our fees to try and protect her own name in an unnecessary court case
She failed to report two teachers to the relevant authorities
She employed teachers without CRB checks
She allowed Father Gregory to continue at the school when he shouldn't have been
This is just the tip of the iceberg, bitter not concerned yes.
14.19 What planet are you on?
ReplyDelete14.19
ReplyDeleteI suppose you are one of the sycophants who will be covering the great leaders path with rose petals at 'The Ostrich Party'.
If you don't like the school;it's quite simple use your iniatitive and move on.
ReplyDeleteLet's be quite clear many of the comments on this blog are using the vehicle of safeguarding as an excuse for character assassination and the somewhat complex JW enjoys every minute of it.
We will be at the party and we do intend to get answers from Gumley Mason and Hemmingway. We will not leave till we have acceptable answers.
ReplyDeleteWe are fully briefed about her lies and regulatory failures from this blog and its not just hearsay, it has actually been proved and documented that she has behaved in an appauling manner. It is unacceptable that she has been allowed to carry on regardless and we intend to take them both to task on this.
How can you interpret this as character assassination, we are parents who have been lied to time and time again, and unfortunately you might not like it but it is how we feel.
ReplyDelete16.09
ReplyDeleteLet's be quite clear many of the comments on this blog are using the vehicle of safeguarding as an excuse for character assassination and the somewhat complex JW enjoys every minute of it.
Examples of JW enjoying it and please provide links so we can see where you mean.
Thank you.
16.13
ReplyDeleteI am delighted to read you’re posting - this is exactly what is needed. I hope other parents make clear their displeasure. Do not forget to put everything you have discussed in writing as soon as you are home and send immediately by registered mail or fax to the school, with a copy to the chairman of the board of Governors and one to the Chairman of Trustees.
Everyone then knows and cannot help but be engaged. The more people who do this the better.
The former head of Durston House - an odious wretch called Craze now deceased, said I had not given notice of my son's departure from the school and he was going to charge me a term’s fees. I am pretty diligent at filing and his attitude was caused by me complaining long and loud about a very serious and frankly reckless, welfare matter on a school outing to West Wittering.
I provided him with a copy of the notice by registered mail, job done.
14:21 Were you approached to be a governor? If not - why not?
ReplyDelete22.21 - I was and I declined. Why I declined is a story which I do not intend to post here. But I understand safeguarding well.
ReplyDeleteAsked now in similar circumstances I would accept, but I doubt I would be asked.
23:51 What a great pity you refused. You are just the person that the parents need to represent them. I fear that our loss is FGM's gain.
ReplyDelete23.51 - We are exchanging at cross purposes. I am not and never have been a parent at St Augustine's. I have an acquaintance who has a daughter at St Augustine's but she is leaving at the end of this term - the parents have had enough, but then so has she. Have they had issues there with the administration? - yes. Of what sort? Bullying of their child by a member of staff.
ReplyDeleteI was asked to be a Governor at another school (by parents) which I declined. I have posted here before and I am the same poster who managed to remove the chairman of governors at that same school. I also managed to see a complete transformation of the non existent safeguarding policy - it took a year and lively exchanges of letters and finally a productive meeting but they embraced it all in the end - and so impressed was one governor she introduced the policy to a famous girls school of which she was the former head.
Some years later now the school has reverted to a poor policy once again under new governors. Schools generally do not like to introduce tough rules for themselves. The more wriggle room the better they foolishly think, which is a path to disaster as boards would realise if only they had an appreciation of the subject. I am sure the school is clapping the safeguarding governor on the back for loosening the undertakings he has managed to introduce without parents noticing. It is a very foolish move but none of the safeguarding illiterates on the board understand the consequences of the actions.
First rule of safeguarding - adult logic does not apply.
My daughter was also bullied by a female member of staff and nothing was ever done by FGM.
ReplyDelete14:19 OMG we've got the hired help blogging again.
ReplyDelete16:13 Wish you all the best for Saturday at the 'Ostrich Party'. Let's hope you have more success than us. Remember the good advice of 17:59.
ReplyDelete16:09/14:19 We sign as 'anonymous' in order to protect our children - you, I suspect sign as 'anonymous' to protect your job. If you are so supportive of Gumley Mason, why not give your name? Could it be that you think she is on the way out and you don't want to appear publicly as supporting her?
ReplyDeleteCould the 'fashion police' comments (17/6 from 19:26 - 21:07), have been made by GM's side so that she appears to be a poor victim. I have never yet met a parent who gives tuppence what she is wearing. We are much more concerned with the welfare of our children and her gross mismanagment of the school!
ReplyDelete12.09 - replace spectacles, and re-read 19.26 and 21.07 once more.
ReplyDeleteThese are students contributing - because students are thankfully reading this blog. They responded to the Manumission comment which also I seem to recall rather defeated someone who has your posting style.
13:08 Thank goodness you agree with the rest of my comment. Have duly made appt with specsavers!
ReplyDelete17.16 Ha! excellent!
ReplyDeleteBut no comment does not mean I agree with you.
For the youthful readers of this blog I should perhaps have been suggesting Amnesia or Pacha which I think have the edge over Manu. As some readers will know (I hope) Manu is very errr ... well, use your imagination and multiply by 3.14. It is everything you will definately not get at the forthcoming "party" which is more a gathering for undefined motives.
Don't pass up the opportunity parents. It's a "tread on a toe cap and talk" day!
Slave to the rave! Looking forward to the Ostrich Party. Will there be a queue to the GM's?
ReplyDeleteFor the full fee paying parents, this is a very difficult time all round. The frustration of the GM's and their sycophants behaviour. The antics of the Governors and Trustees and the ill-timed Ostrich Party. Still don't understand why 'Catch the Train' got priority?!
ReplyDeleteThe GM's will surround themselves with sycophants and then clear off before awkward questions can be asked (their usual reaction to serious issues such as safeguarding our children whilst in their care). I do wish they would catch a train...
ReplyDelete00.23
ReplyDelete'Catch the train " got priority to divert attention from all the other serious issues going on, they hope parents will be whooping with joy at the prospect of their child being chosen for the special race!
Now its on the latest thread concerning the "Abused" documentary on BBC that was shown on Monday evening that Gumley Mason also was friendly with the monster Kit Cunningham. Whatever next !!!
ReplyDeleteHow does this woman survive?
All we can imagine is that the trustess and governors are all stupid or arrogant.
Well 16.30, your argument is unreasoned, illogical and foolish.
ReplyDeleteMy mother was the lead cheerleader for the man who serially sexually abused me. Do I blame my mother? - no! She was taken in by the well veneered exterior, and the truth that he was a very much a lady's man - who adored sex with children.
But what I learned later in life was that he had abused very many others before and after me. We were all in that pubescent cross over stage.
I discovered that he abused two brothers with two years between them. Neither brother has told the other they were abused. They are now men in their late 50's. What neither brother knows is that while he was abusing them the abuser was also having an affair with their mother. This was still ongoing at the time he was abusing me. He would tell me the acts he performed on the woman, I had no clue what he was talking about. What the woman never knew was that both her sons were being sexually abused by her lover.
To hide from everyone that you have a fixation with boys by hiding this addiction behind the image of a smooth talking, urbane 'man about town' from a wealthy family - is very cleaver. How would anybody tell he was a paedophile? Many still do not believe it - this happens.
Remember Alastair Rolfe's words - "you just can't tell (who is a paedophile)"
The only person at fault is the perpetrator, but Gumley Mason may be one of those who will pin blame on Woodstock, Peckham, liberalism, the colour of the wallpaper, or anything else that's convenient, in order not to admit the horrible truth that is in front of her.
Cunningham - serial child abuser.
All we need now is for Chillman to make an appearance at the Ostrich do!
ReplyDeleteI don't think Gumley Mason would allow Chillman at her Ostrich Party this is a public relations event, and she wouldn't want anything to rock the boat. I am sure she will have the local paper there and putting on a very good show and publicising her wonderful school.
ReplyDeleteFlexis Genibus, Chillman was head in 1985-1986. He was frequently drunk in school, particularly in the morning at assembly. He is a nasty, limited, thug. He should not be allowed to live at the Abbey.
ReplyDeleteI loathe the man so much that when he dies I'm afraid to say I will celebrate his death.
I was warned against sending my daughter to St A's when FGM was appointed Head by none other than David Pearce!!
ReplyDeleteI wish someone had warned me, what did he warn you against?
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame parents weren't warned about him, but I have to agree what ever he said about her is more than likely true.
ReplyDelete17.36
ReplyDeleteI fully understand the point that you are making that is is impossible to tell whether or not a person is an abuser.
However, my point was that both Gumley Masons patron's ie CunningHam and Chillman were both under suspicion.
WOW 140 plus comments on Gumley Mason/Chillam.
ReplyDeleteIs this a record for a thread on this blog?
Just goes to show the strength of feeling.
21 JUNE @ 16:13
ReplyDeleteQuote "We will be at the party and we do intend to get answers from Gumley Mason and Hemmingway. We will not leave till we have acceptable answers.
We are fully briefed about her lies and regulatory failures from this blog and its not just hearsay, it has actually been proved and documented that she has behaved in an appauling manner. It is unacceptable that she has been allowed to carry on regardless and we intend to take them both to task on this".
... did you manage to talk to her?
16.24
ReplyDeleteMrrs Gumley Mason will worm her way out of the fact that they were both Patron's of hers she always does.
You can ask her all the questions you like she will not answer she never has done and never will do.
There should be a full enquiry into what has been allowed to happen at that school.
We as parents have been told nothing the only we have found out the truth is by reading this blog.
No other establishment would keep employees in the dark, it is totally unacceptable, her silence speaks volumes what else has she got to hide?
No, 140 comments isn't a record. My first article about St Benedict's, back in August 2009, Catholic Clerical Abuse at Ealing Abbey got a total of 218. A couple of other articles have got above 100.
ReplyDeleteI think the amount of comments confirms how parents feel.
ReplyDeleteThey have been let down on a grand scale and are no nearer the truth being told.
I have heard there are a considerable number of children leaving as a result, you can't blame parents enough is enough.
21 June 16:13 Since no response, I assume you are still in the meadow at school, unless ...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone no who has been appointed as the new Deputy Head?
ReplyDeleteIts another inside job!
ReplyDelete21 JUNE 16:13 Still no response - wonder why!
ReplyDelete'Know why' you mean.
ReplyDelete14.30
ReplyDeleteCan you enlighten us to whom has the post of new deputy head.
I dont think all this blogging is doing anyone any good now. The Masons have seen everyone off. Now lots of girls are leaving, and from what I hear staff will now look around in the new school year to try and leave.Its a pity really
ReplyDeleteWho have 'The Masons seen off," it is such a shame why aren't Trustees and Governors not asking questions regarding diminishing numbers?
ReplyDeleteThe blog has done wonders she's going!!!!!! HURRAY
ReplyDeleteNo - 'the Masons have been seen off'.
ReplyDeleteAt long last the Gumley masons have been seen off!
ReplyDeleteHappy days
ReplyDeleteFlexis genibus said...
ReplyDelete"During the academic year 1986-1987 Dom Gregory was Headmaster of St Benedict's School."
Close, but not quite correct. Dom Anthony Gee ceased to be headmaster in December 1985, and Anthony Dachs became headmaster in January 1987. Dom Gregory Chillman was headmaster in the intervening period (ie, for the whole of calendar 1986).
P
(OP 1984-91)