Keeping the Faith

ITV1's documentary Keeping the Faith earlier this week contained an extended segment about St. Benedict's School. The section about St. Benedict's starts about 15 minutes into the programme.

The programme includes interviews with two victims of Father David Pearce, from the 1980's and 1990's. I know who both victims are though of course I shall not name either. I had no part in the making of the documentary. The complaints from the victim named "James" in the programme didn't result in a criminal prosecution because James's father unfortunately died before he was able to successfully press charges. The Abbot at the time flatly refused to discuss the matter. However, the threat of scandal almost certainly resulted in Pearce being moved from the post of Junior School Headmaster a year after James's father first made his complaint. The Abbot of the time was Lawrence Soper, the monk now living abroad who is being required to return to the UK and report to a police station to answer questions concerning child abuse.

The second victim "Mark" spoke of abuse that spanned over ten years, apparently starting in the 1990s, and described systematic and regular abuse not only of himself but of other boys, and stated that it is completely implausible that the Abbey authorities had no idea of what was going on. He is one of the victims of crimes for which Pearce was convicted. Pearce was ultimately convicted of a string of offences spanning 36 years, from 1972 to 2007.

But the most gobsmacking thing about the documentary is the part of the interview with Archbishop Vincent Nichols which dealt with the subject of St. Benedict's. The segment of the interview followed a narration which explained that Pearce had been abusing at the time that Nichols was chairman of COPCA, the body responsible for setting in place child protection guidelines within the church. Here is the relevant part of the interview.

Q: You put the guidelines in place, you made sure that things happened in parishes up and down the country, and yet we have St. Benedict's in Ealing, it was happening whilst you were in charge of the guidelines. What are your reflections on that?

VN: Anybody that produces guidelines knows that they are only as strong as they are implemented. And the duty for implementing them lies at different levels in the church. The church is quite a complex old thing, this is a Benedictine house, therefore the lines of accountability lie within the Benedictine community.

Q: What was your reaction when you heard about... well it was the tip of the iceberg as well, really at St. Benedicts.

VN: COPCA did not receive reports on cases, so we were not managing cases and allegations. We were trying to provide a framework within which those with immediate responsibility should work, and clearly it didn't work in this case.

The response to the first question can basically be summed up in the words "nothing to do with me, guv". He's saying that the guidelines are OK, and it's all the Abbot's fault that they weren't properly implemented. If I were the Abbot seeing that interview, my reaction would be "Gee thanks Archbishop!"

And Nichols is also saying that even though he now knows all about the problem, he can't do anything about it, because "the lines of accountability lie within the Benedictine community". So it's nothing to do with him at all. Hands washed entirely clean of the business. Pontius Pilate couldn't have worded it better.

Nichols quite frankly comes out very badly in his answer to the second question as well. Actual cases of child abuse within the church are far too lowly a matter for the chairman of COPCA to dirty his hands with. He produced his guidelines and then apparently showed no interest at all in whether they were working or whether they were being implemented. One would have thought that some passing interest in current cases coming to light would have been appropriate, if only to see whether the guidelines were being implemented properly and whether the cases had highlighted weaknesses that needed to be addressed. But no, it seems that the grand theory of the guidelines mustn't be sullied with such inconvenient things as facts.

This is the degree of support your children will get from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as a whole. They will try to push the whole business onto the Benedictines, and since the Benedictines report direct to Rome, and they will tell you that you will have to write to Rome in order to get anything done. In fact, that is precisely what Vincent Nichols' Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser Peter Turner has said. I asked him some time ago what routes were available in the event that the Abbot remained intransigent. This is what he wrote in reply.

You asked me to ascertain who is responsible for overseeing the Abbot and I have tried to explain below.

The Abbot President (Abbot Robert Yeo) [sic] has the duty to advise and warn, but cannot directly intervene in the life of a united Community.

The local bishops have an interest but like the President have no power to directly intervene

Ultimately there is recourse to the Holy See. This could be done via the Apostolic Nuncio, but he’s very sick, so you would have to approach the Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome. They could ultimately invoke an Apostolic Visitation, but they’d probably go first to the Abbot President

The Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation
Abbot Richard Yeo OSB
Downside Abbey
Stratton-on-the-Fosse
Bath BA3 4RH

Of course, Vincent Nichols is not really quite as helpless as he makes out. There has been a comparable case in the Benedictine monastery of Ettal in Bavaria, where Archbishop Reinhard Marx of the archdiocese of Munich-Friesing asked  Benedictine Abbott Barnabas Bögle of the Ettal Abbey and Prior Maurus Kraß of the abbey’s school to resign. In response, an Apostolic Visitation was carried out. Ultimately Cardinal Franc Rode, Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, cleared the names of the abbot and prior and said that the visitation found "that Abbot Barnabas had done all he was required to", even though Ettal is one of three church schools in Bavaria which have been rocked by abuse scandals.

But Archbishop Vincent Nichols hasn't even done that much. You really are on your own.

Correspondence with the headmaster

After the original November 2009 inspection reports were issued, I wrote to the headmaster.

From: Jonathan West
Date: 11 February 2010 17:02
Subject: ISI Inspection reports
To: Senior School Headmaster

Dear Mr Cleugh,

I have just had the opportunity to read the ISI inspection reports for both the Senior and Junior School.

There is one matter about which I am extremely curious and I would like your help in clarifying. Paragraph 4.4 of the Senior School report and paragraph 4.5 of the Junior School report both make mention (using more or less identical wording) of an independent review that was conducted of the measures taken to minimize risk, following the case of Father David Pearce (though he is not mentioned by name in either report).

I notice that the most recent child protection policies published on the school website are dated 1st September 2009. I met the Abbot on 10th September to discuss issues arising from the conviction of Father David, and suggested that an independent review would be a good idea. He said that he would give the matter some thought, but did not promise to proceed with such a review.

On 2nd October, the day Father David was sentenced, the Abbot made a press statement in which he promised an independent  review.

The promise of an independent review is also mentioned in the report published in December of the two Statutory Inquiries held by the Charity Commission. The Commissioners stated that they looked forward to receiving the report of this review.

The Abbot again promised a review in a statement made to the Ealing Gazette in response to the Charity Commission criticisms. This statement was included in an article published on 7th January this year.

I have in the past asked the Abbot for details of this independent review, but he has not so far been willing to provide any.

So perhaps you could help. Could you please indicate what information you provided to the ISI inspectors that led them to state that the review had been conducted and that "the advice from the independent experts has been fully implemented."

Furthermore, I have some quite serious concerns about the adequacy of the existing safeguarding policy as published. I have made those concerns known in writing to the Abbot in his capacity as chairman of governors, but have not had the courtesy of a reply.

I attach a copy of the comments I made to the Abbot. As you can see they go into considerable detail concerning the procedures described, and their shortcomings in terms of clarity and consistency.

Yours sincerely
Jonathan West

The list of comments I attached was the same as I had previously sent to the Abbot (without receiving any reply), and had subsequently published.

Mr Cleugh replied two weeks later.

From: Senior School Headmaster
Date: 25 February 2010 11:54
Subject: RE: ISI Inspection reports
To: Jonathan West

Dear Mr West

My apologies for the delay in replying to your e-mail dated 11th February, but the school was closed for half term and I myself was away.

I do assure you that we do take our child protection procedures most seriously and review our policies regularly and with the guidance of both the Diocese and the Local Authority.  The safety and welfare of all the children is of paramount importance to us.

When we are next reviewing our policies, which will be towards the end of this academic year, we shall take your comments into account.

Yours sincerely

Chris Cleugh
Headmaster

An email assuring the paramountcy of the welfare of children is a waste of electrons unless it is backed by policies and procedures that actually protect the welfare of children. I replied as follows:

From: Jonathan West
Date: 25 February 2010 18:46
Subject: Re: ISI Inspection reports
To: Senior School Headmaster

Dear Mr Cleugh

Unfortunately, you have neglected to answer the specific question I put. It was this:

Could you please indicate what information you provided to the ISI inspectors that led them to state that the review had been conducted and that "the advice from the independent experts has been fully implemented."

I would be grateful for a response on this particular point.

Regards
Jonathan West

And answer came there none.

As it turns out, the DfE agreed with me that the school's procedures were inadequate - the headmaster would have been better advised to take some notice of me.

It's probably worth repeating Section 4.4 of the ISI's November report on the Senior School.

4.4 The trustees and advisers are fully aware of, and 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 minimize risk. The advice received from the independent experts has been fully implemented.

In the meeting last Tuesday, Mr. Cleugh gave a somewhat confusing account of this, suggesting that the ISI had managed to get two completely different cases mixed up, that there had been a separate review of the risks posed by Father Stanislaus Hobbs in addition to the diocesan review of Father David Pearce.

But if that were so, then the ISI would surely have made reference in this paragraph to two cases. But they didn't. The only reasonable conclusion is that the ISI was not made aware of the Hobbs situation. Given that Father Stanislaus Hobbs resigned as a Trustee in 2005 at the time of his arrest, the school had a statutory duty to send a Notification to the DCSF Teacher Misconduct Section in Darlington. And that Notification should already have been available to the inspectors when they arrived in November 2009.

And if the failure to make a Notification at the time in 2005 had merely been due to an oversight, it ought to have been rectified in information provided by the school in the pre-inspection questionnaire, so that the inspectors had full information by the time they visited.

Prizegiving

Apparently I received an honourable mention from the headmaster at last night's prizegiving ceremony at St. Benedict's School. Parents were told about this blog (though in indirect terms) and warned to be highly skeptical about what it contains.

If you are reading these words as a result of wondering what the headmaster was talking about, let me welcome you, and add that I entirely agree with the headmaster about not taking my word for anything.

Read as much as you wish, compare what I say with official documents, the Abbot's letters to parents, the school's child protection policy, what you have discussed with teachers or other parents, and then make up your own mind.

If you conclude that there is nothing to concern you, then fine. On the other hand, if you decide you do have a worry, then feel free to contact me in confidence. Send me an email, my address is jonathanwest22@googlemail.com.

Why didn't victims approach the police before?

One commenter on Outside the Safeguarding meeting has asked the following.

I have to say that I find some of the comments posted here - utterly bizarre. If the anonymous above have had such a bad time at st benedict's, why didn't they go to the police about their experiences with Father David? He was sentenced on 5 separate counts yet there were many more boys who were abused by him. Without the statements from those affected the police were unable to take any further action. It is not just the Abbey who are to blame here - so too are the many ex pupils and parents who knew and yet did nothing. Going to the Abbot to complain is not enough. It was a criminal offence and so they should have gone straight to the police with their child.

If you genuinely wish to understand why victims often don't come forward for years or even decades, and are prepared to spend 90 minutes doing so, then I recommend that you watch the documentary Chosen. It is available online at the link I've provided. Or if you don't have 90 minutes, read the review in the Guardian or The Times or The Independent instead.

In the documentary, three victims of child sex abuse at Caldicott School, all now in middle age, describe their experiences, how they were groomed and then abused, and how they were made to feel complicit, and how at one point one of them even denied there was anything going on when directly asked about it. And they describe the devastating effect it has had on their adult lives.

I have seen the entire film, and I also attended Pearce's sentencing hearing and so heard the recitation of the offences by the prosecuting barrister. As a result I can tell tell you that there is a great similarity between the grooming techniques used by Pearce and those used by the abusers at Caldicott, so if you watch Chosen, you will understand some of what has been going on at St. Benedict's and why it is so hard for the victims to come forward. You can be quite certain that there are a very great many victims of Pearce and others at St. Benedict's who have not yet summoned the courage to tell anybody about it.

If your child is groomed and then abused in  this fashion, then it is quite likely that he or she may never tell you about it. It is not uncommon for victims to feel unable to speak out until their parents are dead, because they cannot bear to cause the additional distress involved in confronting their parents with the fact that they have failed in a most basic and catastrophic way to protect their child.

ITV Documentary

The documentary this evening on ITV1 Keeping the Faith includes a significant segment about Father David Pearce and the complicity of the school authorities. It includes interviews with two of Father David's victims. It is available on the ITV Player for the next 30 days.

From inside the meeting

I've now had some excellent reports from parents about the meeting. I was amazed by some of the things that were said. I can't cover everything that I've been told, so I'm just going to address a few key points.

One of the first points that Mr Cleugh apparently made was to the effect that the ISI's issues primarily revolved whether the school automatically passed allegations of abuse to the authorities without "investigation". As I understand it, Mr Cleugh claimed that of course the school has always referred all cases (or was it nearly all cases?), and that the "investigation" carried out by the school is just a basic check to see whether there is any issue to refer. He claimed that the issue with the ISI boiled down to a semantic one of whether this should actually be called an "investigation" in the the Child Protection Policy, and that he was able to make the child protection policy fully compliant by minor edits replacing "investigated" wherever it occurred with some other form of words..

If I've understood this correctly, then this is absolute rubbish. Mr Cleugh has accurately described the change he made in the May 2010 version of the policy, but it is decidedly not the case that the Child Protection Policy stated that all cases will automatically be referred. This is paragraph 23 of the May 2010 version of the policy.

23. Referral guidelines: A referral to the SSD or police will not normally be made where:

• a referral would be contrary to the wishes of a pupil complainant who is of sufficient maturity and understanding and properly informed, and contrary also to the wishes of the complainant's parents; and
• the case is one that can be satisfactorily dealt with under the School's internal procedures, the parents being kept fully informed, as appropriate.

However, if during the course of the internal procedures and the procedures required under paragraph 5, it appears that the situation is more serious, the Designated Teacher will again consider whether a referral should be made in accordance with paragraph 22 above.

This is not a form of words which indicates a policy of automatic referral. The referral doesn't happen if against the wishes of the pupil, or if the school's internal procedures (whatever they are) can handle it. I've analysed this paragraph in more detail elsewhere. This is far from the only example of text which provides for substantive decisions before a referral is made. Look back through past articles on this blog. I've analysed the child protection policy paragraph by paragraph, starting here. Then make up your own mind as to whether this was a policy of automatic referral.

Interestingly, and apparently as a result of the DfE's intervention, this paragraph has been changed. In the September 2010 edition of the policy, it now reads as follows:

23. Referral guidelines
Our policy is to refer all matters of concern to the Social Services Department.

Much better. But there are other related paragraphs that haven't yet been brought into line with this. The Designated Teacher is normally the person supposed to make the referral, and yet paragraph 22 still doesn't specify what the Designated Teacher must do on receiving a report. Instead, paragraph 22 gives a long list of things that the Designated Teacher "will take into account". I've analysed the May 2010 version of para 22 in more detail here. Some items in the bullet list in the September 2010 version have been changed, and so the current version is somewhat improved. But it still has this fundamental weakness.

And as for Mr. Cleugh's claim that the school actually always reports cases, this is not borne out by the ISI's findings. This is what the ISI says about the reporting of allegations

The allegations against Fr DP were referred to social services by the school following disclosure by a pupil. The school’s safeguarding records since 2003 do not mention any other report to social services in connection with concerns related to staff, volunteers, trustees or monks. All have been family or other matters. Safeguarding contacts have also been maintained with the Westminster Diocesan Safeguarding Commission. The Abbot made a statement disclosing the cases of Fr DP and another monk, and each headmaster issued copies in March 2006, with covering letters to parents.

The rules on reporting apply to governors and Trustees just as much as they do to staff. And yet, since 2003 Father Stanislaus Hobbs has been arrested and tried and Father Gregory Chillman investigated. Both have resigned as Trustees. And yet no records of any referrals concerning them (or any other staff member or trustee) were found by the ISI or produced by the school.

The rules are even more strict about resignations or sackings in circumstances where a person's suitability to be in charge of children is in question. Since about 1959 it has been a statutory requirement for a school to return a Notification to the authorities (used to be to the Department for Children Schools and Families, now it is to the Independent Safeguarding Authority) describing the circumstances. This is what the ISI report stated about this matter.

At the time of the follow-up inspections, the school did not have a fully established policy for reporting directly to the Department for Education and Skills (later the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and currently the Department for Education) or to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, responsible for such referrals since 20 January 2009. The advisability of making such referrals is now clearly understood even when there may not be a strict legal obligation to do so, and an historical referral was made in May 2010.

 In fact, this is not quite true. The school does have a written policy on this. This is the last paragraph of Section 26.

If the School ceases to use the services of a member of staff (or a governor or volunteer) because they are unsuitable to work with children, a compromise agreement will not be used and there will be a prompt and detailed report to the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Any such incidents will be followed by a review of the safeguarding procedures within the School, with a report being presented to the Governors without delay.

This is perfectly clear and in fact is one of the few well-written parts of the Child Protection Policy. There's just one small problem: in the cases of Hobbs and Chillman, they didn't follow the policy.

Now, this is a very serious matter. It means that not only was the school's policy seriously inadequate, but the school didn't even bother to follow the bits of it that are clear.

Let us be perfectly blunt about this. In failing to make those Notifications, the school has broken the law. So merely getting the school's written policies into a fit state will not guarantee that the school will actually follow the policies.

Next is the issue of Father Stanislaus Hobbs. He is living in the monastery under restricted covenant, imposed because he was considered a danger to children. The ISI made this issue the subject of its first recommendation.

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.

I understand that the Abbot gave a long speech on how Father Stan is old, unable to live by himself, that finding alternative accommodation for him is not easy and that the Abbot is negotiating with the ISI and DfE to gain their agreement to an exemption in his case. That may all be so, and ultimately the ISI and DfE might agree to an exemption. But until it is agreed, it is grossly misleading for Anthony Nelson, the school's solicitor, to have told The Times in August that the school was fully compliant with the ISI's requirements when he knew perfectly well that this issue had not been resolved. It think it's not unreasonable simply to call this a lie.

I'd now like to address the idea that almost all the cases are historical and needn't concern current parents. As I understand it, this line was pushed pretty consistently throughout the meeting. But a parent rather pricked the balloon when he asked whether there had been any cases in the last 12 months other than those referred to in the ISI report. It appears that Mr. Cleugh hesitated somewhat before admitting that a teacher is currently suspended while an investigation is carried out concerning child abuse allegations. He quickly went on to say that Social Services have been brought in, but the police are not interested that it is not a criminal matter, that the children are all entirely safe, and while the investigation is continuing he can't provide further details.

To a degree I can have some sympathy with this. But that sympathy doesn't extend to condoning the claims he had made only a few minutes earlier that we were primarily dealing with matters that had occurred 20 years ago. Don't make claims that aren't true, especially about the safety of children. Parents are apt to get rather upset about it. By the sound of it, the effect on the parents of Mr Cleugh's admission could hardly have been greater had a bomb gone off next door.

Unless the policies are perfectly clear, and they are properly implemented, then there is a very great risk that a new long-term paedophile could get onto the staff, or even still be on the staff undetected. After all, if the trust has lost a third of its Trustees to paedophile abuse in the last five years, what is the probability that there are really no abusers amongst the staff? No doubt part of the reason Father David Pearce was able to carry on abusing for so long (36 years) is that some at least of those around him on hearing rumours disbelieved them because they believed that somebody like him would never do such a thing. There is no profile for paedophile abusers. They can be from any social class, any occupation, any level of intelligence, any creed or colour. In fact the intelligent and socially respectable ones are the most dangerous, because they can work themselves into positions of trust where they do damage to very many children. The reason that automatic referral to Social Services is so vitally important is that they won't know the alleged perpetrator, and so will not be burdened by the belief that he is a splendid fellow who would never hurt a fly, let alone a child.

And what is this about wanting to keep the press out as it is a private meeting? Child protection is a very serious issue, and if the school is as thoroughly in the clear as the headmaster and the Abbot were trying to suggest, then they should have welcomed the press in to hear the parents' questions and their answers. but they didn't do that. They even barred parents of former pupils from attending.

If they have nothing to hide, why has the Abbot repeatedly refused my requests to meet him? And if the school gives such priority to making the Child Protection a model of excellence, why did the Abbot and headmaster ignore my email to them commenting on problems with the child protection policy last November?

Then there is the issue of the Inquiry by Lord Carlile. There seems to be a fundamental contradiction here. If the problems of the school are as minor as Mr. Cleugh was apparently suggesting, then why call in such a major establishment figure to conduct an inquiry? I dread to think how much Lord Carlile will be costing the school - probably something approaching the fees of 20 senior school pupils for the whole year. The school would never voluntarily spend such a sum of money which could otherwise be spent on improved sports facilities for instance. So I do rather wonder who has been twisting the Abbot's arm about this, and therefore who has sufficient concerns to think that such a major and expensive step is necessary. It's obviously not the parents, because the inquiry was decided on before any parents knew about the ISI report. It can hardly be the Trustees, since the Abbot was standing alongside Mr. Cleugh when he was energetically minimising the problem. I would be surprised if it were the ISI, because if they had made such a demand it would have been included in their report. By process of elimination, the obvious candidate is the DfE. It rather suggests they take an extremely dim view of the situation at the school.

I've written a line-by-line analysis of that the ISI supplementary report says and means. Read it for yourself and decide whether you think the school has been open with you.

• The ISI Supplementary Report - 1 (Introduction and situation at the time of the inspection)
  
• The ISI Supplementary Report - 2 (Reporting, and responsibilities of Trustees)
  
• The ISI Supplementary Report - 3 (Regulatory requirements)
• The ISI Supplementary Report - 4 (Recommandations)

I'd like to close with one last important point. You cannot guarantee that a school will forever remain free of abusive staff. The discovery of an abuser on the staff should not necessarily be regarded as a failure by the school. What matters is how quickly the abuse is detected, and how effectively the alleged abuser is removed from contact with children. An abuse case might be picked up very quickly and dealt with effectively, in which case parents should regard that as a success for the school, a demonstration that the safeguarding procedures work. I wish I could say that the safeguarding procedures at St. Benedict's meet that description. If in future they do, then I will be the first to cheer.

But at the moment they fall far short, and the headmaster and the Abbot are trying to kid you otherwise. They are playing word-games with the safety of your children. It is for you to decide if you are going to put up with that.

Outside the Safeguarding meeting

I was outside St Benedict's School last night aiming to hand out cards to parents. I was with a couple of friends, I'll call them S and J. J had a video camera with him.

I briefed the others carefully: we will not set foot in the grounds, we will not attempt to obstruct anybody, we will remain on the public highway, we will stand at the exits and offer a card to anybody willing to take it, but not press the matter. I advised J in particular that his job was to record. Even in the unlikely event that I got roughed up, he was under no circumstances to get involved, but merely to record the entire incident.

The cards had a very simple message.

Is your child really safe at St. Benedict's?
Read the facts about the ISI report
http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/

The parents' meeting started at 7.30, and we arrived in the vicinity soon after. We did a bit of a recce and worked out that the only two open exits were the vehicle exit on Marchwood Crescent and the pedestrian exit on Eaton Rise, so we agreed that I would cover Marchwood Crescent, S would cover Eaton Rise, and J would stand on the corner of the two streets with his video camera and would film in either direction as required.

There was very obvious security on the entrances both in Eaton Rise and Marchwood Crescent, and of course they soon realised that we were hanging around. Security came out to talk to S at the Eaton Rise exit. J was accosted at the bus shelter on the corner and replied monosyllabically in a deliberately thick Geordie accent - they quickly left him alone.

A security man came out and recognised me at the entrance on Marchwood Crescent, and said "Good evening Mr West, such a pity you've not been allowed in. Still, you might get a few more hits" I replied that it didn't bother me in the slightest. He went in again, and in due course, no fewer than three of them came back out to confront me. I said "Good evening gentlemen", and they replied "Good evening Mr. West"

They went on to tell me that I was not permitted on the school grounds. I replied that I was surprised that the school was so scared of me that they felt it necessary to send three people out to tell me that. They said (of course) that they weren't scared, but I think the point got made!

I said that I had no intention of entering the grounds, and that I trusted that they would do nothing to stop me from going about my lawful business on the public highway. One of them (who looked like a bruiser of a nightclub bouncer) seemed to be itching for an an opportunity to get physical, but the leader said that in that case there would be no trouble. J had by this time seen that there was a conversation going on with them standing rather close to me, and was walking up towards us to get a better shot. The leader, seeing him, said "And you can send your heavy home as well." I replied "Oh, you needn't worry about him, he just has a camera." They beetled off inside very quickly!

A bit later they came outside again, and one said to another "I want you to come and witness this - there is illegal filming going on, I'm being filmed illegally". But they didn't attempt to call the police, and we ignored them.

At about 9.45pm everyone came trooping out. I offered a card to anybody that was willing to take one. No chance of giving one to anybody coming out in a car, the security people were waving the drivers on very insistently, and I wasn't going to have them accuse me of obstructing the exit, but I managed to hand out cards 15-20 to people coming out on foot. S told me that she managed roughly the same number at Eaton Rise.

There was nobody else outside, just the three of us. No press, no TV cameras, just a parent of a former pupil and two friends. The security people seemed rather disappointed at not having more to do.