Child Safeguarding Whistleblower, Thomas Tallis School Part 2 – Supervising

This is the second part of story about a child safeguarding issue at a school, Thomas Tallis School in Greenwich.

A concerned teacher Mick V, expressed concern about a child’s wellbeing and possible sexual abuse  but then found himself the victim of a ficticious “parallel construction” to shut him up. He lost his job at the school as a teacher and himself is targetted as a result.

The first post was2018 Mar 7 Cathy Fox Blog Child Safeguarding Whistleblower, Thomas Tallis School Part 1- Cover Up [2] or download  [2a] and this post is Supervising organisations did nothing about my concerns relating to the possible abuse and neglect of the child [1] There is way more than enough evidence, documents and emails, which are all reproduced at the end to back up Mick V’s Story.

He has tried and tried and exhausted every single avenue and official authority to try and bring attention to the lack of safeguarding to this child. The system has closed ranks and worked together to ignore his concerns for the child and attack him.

This case  illustrates not only that there are corrupt individuals, but that institutional corruption that works to punish the whistleblower, protect the establishments and powerful people and ignore the real needs of the child. Are the corrupt individuals colluding?

All we can do is to keep exposing it. The system is rigged – who rigs it and why? The more information that is out in the public, the more we can shine the light on the corruption and work out the pattern.

This is Mick V’s story. He has been has come through what they have thrown at him so far. Probably damaged, but unbowed. It takes special people to stick to telling the truth come what may.

(Apologies for formatting problems still evident)

Supervising organisations did nothing about my concerns relating to the possible abuse and neglect of the child (Pupil R)


I used to work at Thomas Tallis school and I raised serious health and safety/safeguarding

concerns about the pupil on 12/2/2016:

He is anorexic/emaciated and his state rapidly deteriorated because he was coming to the

school without the food, without his diet plan, was never taking his jacket off in order to hide his

body, the members of staff were ordering him to sit down and then used 2 heat blowers in order

to force him to take his jacket off, he was jumping the school fence EVERY day around 1.p.m.

thus leaving the school unaccompanied and unauthorised, he was using the curtain pole as a

weapon against other pupils, the temperature in the classroom was excessive – 28 degreees

Celsius (82.5 Fahrenheit) on the functioning classroom thermostat,..

In the beginning of January 2016, Mrs Francesca Kamei informed me that he is the “highest risk

pupil out of the school’s 1,800 pupils in terms of his poor mental and physical health”,

Mrs Francesca Kamei also told me that his body is “starved because his mind is starved”, and

that her “calls to hospital doctors were not returned by those doctors”.

Less than 2 hours later after sending my whistleblowing email of 12/2/2016, I was sacked

despite my excellent references from the Deputy Head, my agency, pupils and their parents

throughout my employment there.

The school cited the lack of “funding” as the reason for my dismissal.

The school employed another tutor in my place (who was unsuitable for Pupil1) and provided

false information to ACAS that they did not employ another tutor in my place.

Then the school broke into my locker, stole my list of personal passwords in order to access my

data which they subsequently deleted, amended and blocked from disclosure.

The above is in the breach of FOI Act sections 55 and 77, but the school could not care less.

Some 5 weeks later the school Policeman harassed/intimidated me on my private phone

number (Headteacher provided it to him) in order to stop my complaints about the school to the

external organisations.

The school never provided me with the feedback relating to my concerns.

This is in breach of Law Acts and the school’s Safeguarding Policy.

Greenwich Children’s Services falsely claimed that they do not investigate concerns about the

health and safety/safeguarding of children.

Greenwich Counsellors falsely claimed to me that they will investigate my concerns.

They never did.

Both the Thomas Tallis school and the Winchmore Tutors agency have acted in

totally unprofessional, nasty and malicious way in order to hide their failures and their gross


They consistently acted like aggressive bullies.

And, they acted like that simply because they can.

I am absolutely sure that I am not the first teacher who experienced all their above vendetta

for no other reason but to simply report concerns at the workplace.

Also, judging from my own experience and from what pupils told me, the LSU was the

graveyard for tutors who worked there only because of Mrs Smith.

Pupils loved those teachers and were surprised by their sudden departures without even saying


Both the Thomas Tallis school and Winchmore Tutors agency have repeatedly breached

numerous Acts of Law, guidelines and procedures.

They have been repeatedly proven as totally incapable of telling the truth.

They do not have any scruples/ethics when pursuing their extremely aggressive vendetta

against me only because I raised concerns about school’s health and safety/safeguarding

failures and misconduct:

I was sacked, my locker was broken into, my list of personal passwords was stolen and used to

access my school accounts, my data was deleted, amended and blocked from disclosure, my

concerns were not addressed, I was repeatedly provided with false promises by the school and

the agency’s staff that I will get my data, the school policeman was harassing/intimidating over

my personal phone number to stop my complaints to the external organisations, the school was

planning to have me barred from teaching in order to “pre-empt” me from going to the local

newspaper, the school blocked me from contacting two parents despite express parents’


both I and the agency were blackmailed by the school with future employment – hence the

agency sacked me and colluded with the school to provide false information and negative

references about me, agency even went that far to falsely accuse me of serious charge of

making their staff fearful for their safety, the school provided negative references about me to 6


the school sent their members of staff to my home address with intention to provoke

an incident with their “hand delivered” SAR disclosure (See “Headteacher’s PA writing on the school’s SAR

envelope” [29] and “Headteacher’s PA writing on the school’s letter” [30] , contain the evidence that

Headteacher’s PA writing is on the envelope of the school’s SAR disclosure) which was 95 days

OVER the ICO’s deadline ( School also breached another ICO’s deadline by 120 days with their

disclosure to my FOI request. Regardless, ICO could not care less about the above school’s

breaches of ICO’s own rules),

the school colluded with the Council and other organisations to cover-up this matter,…

In all the above, both Thomas Tallis school and Winchmore Tutors agency totally disregarded

wishes of parents and wishes of pupils I was teaching.

They have both repeatedly exhibited total contempt and cynicism for the safeguarding and

special needs of pupils.

They have both repeatedly exhibited total contempt, disregard and cynicism for me, my family

and my teaching career.

They have repeatedly refused to disclose anything about the Pupil R.

Both the Council and the school have repeatedly refused to even reassure me that he is O.K.

( School’s own policy prescribes “reassurance” to the “referrer”).

All the above indicates that both Thomas Tallis school and Winchmore Tutors agency have been

knowingly and persistently acting against the Public Interest.

After investigating very thoroughly for the past 25 months (I sent more than 1,200 emails), I

have amassed the voluminous evidence of the huge cover-up involving numerous organisations.

I was either totally ignored by their numerous “safeguarders” or they were sending me totally

false, hostile and intelligence insulting statements:

a) In relation to my complaint about the school’s health and safety/safeguarding failures

to the Children’s Services on 21/3/2016  Email from Greenwich Children’s Services [7] :

Mr Gerard Murphy (Head of Complaints Management, Children’s Services 
 Royal Borough of Greenwich) on 25/4/2016 stated that Children’s Services

do not investigate health and safety/safeguarding failures at schools:

there is no role of the local authority in investigating complaints about a school”.

Over the period of last year, I uncovered some of the members of Children’s Services that

should have been involved in issues relating to the Pupil R, but they weren’t:

LADO (Local Safeguarding Designated Officer) who never responded to my several emails +

my letter to the Children’s Services – (is it Mr Ken Palmer who never responded to my emails

of 29/8/2016 and 31/8/2016 ?) and the “Pupil Attendance expert” (who is also an Ofsted

inspector) Mr Jack Kenny, who advertises in each of his emails that he “does not work on

Mondays” , that he reads “Girl on the Train” and that the Greenwich Council is the “Council of

the year 2013”.

Mr Kenny’s only query about any of my LSU pupils was about who funds (is it the school or

LEA?) learning support of my Pupil1.

It is shocking that throughout the 3 month period of my employment, there were no

safeguarding officials of professional bodies visiting the LSU (where the Pupil R was based

and where I used to work).

It is shocking that none of them made any contact with me and asked me for any further information both throughout my 3 month employment and for the past 24 months since my dismissal despite the following facts:

that I was one of only 3 members of staff at LSU who was in direct contact with Pupil R for 3 months,

that I was the member of staff who raised the serious health and safety/safeguarding concerns.

Instead, they repeatedly ignored my numerous emails + letter over the past 25 months and

colluded in the cover-up of their failures and their own misconduct.

All the above facts clearly show how much they really care and know about health and safety/


Greenwich Council’s own whistleblowing procedure (published in June 2013), Par 7.1. states:

Where malpractice is shown to have occurred this may reflect badly on management, systems, or on individual managers. Whistleblowers may fear that management will be tempted to ‘shoot the messenger’. It is important for employees to understand that there will be no adverse repercussions for raising reasonable concerns. The following safeguards exist when following this procedure…”

Evidently, all the above school’s and Greenwich Council’s managers actions are in breach of the above whistleblowing procedures/guidelines and they have been totally ignoring them.

Instead, everything they have been doing was to ensure: that there will be “adverse repercussions” for the messenger

(whom they promptly sack, break into his locker, steal his list of his personal passwords, then break into his accounts, then read his emails, then delete/block the evidence of their failures and misconduct, then harass/intimidate him, then blackmail him with employment,..)

that they “kill the messenger” (send negative and false references about him that cause him to lose employment with 6 agencies)

that they kill his whistleblowing message (delete/block the messenger’s evidence, knowingly spread false information about his message,..).

My emails to Mrs Palmer of Children’s Services on the 21/3/2016 and the 25/3/2016 [22]

My email was not answered by Mrs Palmer (Head of the Children’s Services), even though her

correspondence indicates that she received my email of 21/3/2016 and was fully involved in

this matter on the 30/3/2016, when she falsely claimed that this is an HR matter Head of Children’s Services Ms Gillian Palmer – “this is an HR matter rather than complaint about the school” [22] :

“I believe that this is an HR matter rather than a complaint about the school.”

“In the new term, please would you speak with the headteacher that it is addressed.”

“I do not need to take any further action. Thanks G.”

(Mrs Palmer’s only agenda is to help the school cover-up this matter.

Mrs Palmer was knowingly ignoring her role and responsibilities.

She totally disregarded the fact that my complaint is clearly about health and safety/

safeguarding of pupil(s), hence it was not an HR matter.

Instead, Children’s Services should have actively got involved in this matter and arranged the

meeting in order to establish the facts and the desired outcomes:

How will the school obtain the diet plan for this pupil, how to deal with the Pupil R who jumps

over the school fence EVERY day thus leaving without authorisation and supervision, how to

address the issues of excessive temperature, curtain pole,..Gree

Shockingly. Mrs Palmer is not even disturbed by any of the above serious issues.

She does not even make a single mention of dire situation of Pupil R in her internal

correspondence with Mrs Cussack (HR Manager Social & Care, Finance Directorate).

Neither does Mrs Cussack mention the dire situation of Pupil R.

Instead, she sends an email on the 31/3/2016 to Mr Mark Higgins (Principal HR Adviser,Social

& Care Services (Schools),Finance Directorate,Royal Borough of Greenwich):

“Mark, please see below. I think you are already aware of this case. Can I please ask that

you support the school to address this. Thanks.”

(What does she mean with “support the school”? What about supporting the needs of an

anorexic/emaciated Pupil R and the needs of other pupils at LSU who suffer from 28 degrees

Celsius temperature at LSU, no learning objectives,..?)

Evidently, Mrs Palmer and her fellow safeguarders at Children’s Services totally ignored my

concerns and did not provide me with any feedback despite the urgent and serious nature of my


Consequently, they knowingly breached their own procedures and guidelines of their Children’s

Services in order to whitewash and cover up this matter.

Instead, they are constantly discussing how to silence me instead of dealing with my concerns

about the dire situation of Pupil R and other pupils..

It is shocking that they made no query regarding the wellbeing of anorexic/emaciated Pupil R

and that they did not ask about the Headteacher’s proposed actions of how to specifically

address each of my concerns.

It was not just the school’s, but also the Children’s Services responsibilities to address the

special needs and the dire situation of Pupil R.

Considering all the above, there is no doubt that Mrs Palmer’s identical failures and misconduct

took place at Barnet’s Children’s Services where she was also the Head of Children’s Services.

At the time, Mrs Palmer was severely criticised by the government’s Serious Case Review

(SCR) in relation to the death of Baby S.

Even the above SCR criticism did not stop her from getting the post of the Head of Children’s

Services, but this time at the Greenwich Council:

Mrs Palmer’s and Children’s Services above attempts to cover-up my complaint did not stop at

this stage:

On 25/4/2016, Mr Murphy of Children’s Services sends me his aforementioned email (on top of

this paragraph) in which he falsely claims that Children’s Services do not investigate health and

safety/ safeguarding concerns.


b) Once I complained on the 3/9/2017 to the Greenwich Council ( to ALL Counsellors), they

did not investigate my concerns despite their promises and reassurances.

Cllr Denise Hyland on 3/9/2016:

Thank you for your whistle-blowing email which, as a safeguarding allegation, will now

be dealt with by the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Cllr Miranda Williams In

partnership with the Director and Asst Director.”

Cllr Jackie Smith responded and assured me that “this matter will be investigated” on the

7/9/2016. She also stated on the 5/9/2016:

“Please now give us breathing space to deal with this.

The council is used to dealing with such cases and you need to trust it will be dealt with in

a professional and impartial way.”

She also listed the following individuals who will conduct an investigation of my allegations:

Cllr Christine Grice and Cllr Linda Bird (jointly chairing Children and Young People’s scrutiny

panel) Cllr Miranda Williams (Cabinet Member for Children’s Services), in partnership with the

Director and Asst Director, Tracy Russell as Senior Asst Director.

I sent many emails of evidence to Cllr Denise Hyland.

She was simply acknowledging my emails, but never made any query or asked for the clarification or asked for specific evidence.

Despite all their above assurances, the Council never conducted any investigation.

My repeated suggestions of the external team’s involvement, Member of Parliament’s

involvement or representative of the Whistleblowing charity involvement in the Council’s

investigation were totally ignored by the Council.

1) There was even a Greenwich Counsellor who displayed hostility/patronising/cynicism against

me when I raised my concerns with the Greenwich Council back in September 2016:

Cllr Mathew Morrow in relation to my email of concerns related to dire situation of Pupil R to

the Greenwich Counsellors on 7/9/2016 at 18:00:

I would also advise that as you say you are no longer working at the school you are no

longer part of any team that works with this child.  It would therefore be inappropriate for

anyone who is working with the child to share information with you.  

Perhaps this accounts for the lack of responses you have received?”

(Cllr Morrow could not care less the Council’s policy on whistleblowers that claims that

“messengers will not be shot”.

His opinion is malicious and it also does not make sense.

Cllr Morrow also does not have any grasp of safeguarding and the necessity of the


Surely, Cllr Morrow does not encourage any whistleblowing.)

2) The Greenwich NUT representative Mr Tim Woodcock comment on 7/9/2016 at 13:06

in relation to my concern about Pupil R jumping over the school fence every day:

A regular runner for example, may have a simple text system in place that informs

parents etc that the child is no longer on the school premises”.

I will seek assurances that the matter is being properly followed through.”

(Evidently, Mr Woodcock wants to help his Union’s members at the school, but he does not

make any sense. He also never read the Safeguarding Policy.

He also never sought any “assurances” and has never contacted me back despite the gravity

of my allegations and concerns. He is yet another person who mentions ““assurances” , but

does not deliver.)

3) The Greenwich Council also failed to respond to my FOI request within the deadline.

It took the Council 3 times longer to respond to my FOI request than the prescribed

deadline. Eventual Council’s response was totally full of false information.

Council was also highly evasive and unspecific in their disclosure.

Council also refused to release any information about the wellbeing of Pupil R and any

information related to the Council’s quality of care for him.

Council’s above refusal was in breach of FOI Act, Par 31

Evidently, both the school and the Council are of the same opinion that I should not be privy

to such information either as the teacher (Mrs Smith was boasting and reassuring

her bosses that she tells me nothing about pupils’ needs) or as the “third party”.

The Council totally ignored the fact that the wellbeing of Pupil R is in the Public Interest.

c) In relation to my concerns about Pupil R which I reported to the NSPCC:

NSPCC states that it only deals with “specific child”, but my concerns are not related to the

specific child”.

Mrs Catherine Ryan (Helpline Practitioner, NSPCC) on 7/6/2016:

From what you have said in your email, it seems that there are no concerns relating to a

specific child so we would not be able to pass this information on to Children’s services at

this time.”

I then complained to the Chief Executive Mr Peter Wanless who reassured me on 8/7/2016

that NSPCC will investigate my concerns.

Despite his reassurances, NSPCC decided that they will not do anything because NSPCC

does not deal with “individual” cases.

This is totally opposite of the above Mrs Ryan’s email.

Mr Jevwe Ugbowanko (Helpline Practitioner, NSPCC) on 12/6/2016:

I am sorry to read about your concerns; however as an information-sharing agency the

NSPCC Helpline is not able to investigate individual cases.”

Almost 2 months later I received an email from Mrs Ruth Nicholson Grindrod (Assistant Team

Manager – NSPCC Helpline) on 5/8/2016:

We would like to make a referral (please see the above referral number) to the Designated

Officer regarding the concerns that you have raised. In order to assist this referral, any names

of specific members of staff in the education environment who have acted in an

unprofessional manner or in a manner that may have harmed a child or put a child at risk of

harm, would be very useful”

I provided NSPCC with all the above requested information which NSPCC was supposed

to send to LADO (Local Area Designated Safeguarding Officer).

Since there was no communication from LADO for 7 weeks, I asked NSPCC for LADO’s

details in order to contact him directly.

Mrs Anna Lock (Helpline Practitioner-NSPCC) on 1/9/ 2016:

Unfortunately we are unable to provide the name of the Designated Officer (LADO) due to data protection.”

After their above email, NSPCC never contacted me again in order to provide me with the

feedback from LADO.

Needless to say, LADO never contacted me either.

d) In relation to my complaint to ICO about deletion of my data that also contained data

related to the health and safety/safeguarding:

According to ICO, it is O.K for the employer to delete the employees (and whistleblower’s

data) if it is the “usual practice” and if the employer stated that in its “own procedures”.

Mrs Elizabeth Malloch (Lead Case Officer, ICO) totally dismissed my following submissions:

that the school’s own safeguarding policy states that data related to health and safety/

safeguarding should NOT be deleted.

It is also in breach of FOI Act, Section 77 to “delete, amend or block “ such data.

Regardless, Mrs Elizabeth Malloch of ICO legitimises the school’s deletion of data on the


It is usual practise upon departure by a staff member for all information to be deleted..

As this action was taken in line with it’s own procedures I do not consider that there

has been a breach of the DPA”

ICO repeatedly totally ignored the following facts:

1) That the school has accessed my data (by breaking in to my locker, then stealing my list of

personal passwords), and then erased, amended and blocked my data in order to prevent

the disclosure.

This was in breach of the section 77 FOI Act, because my data contained health and

safety/safeguarding records.

2) That the school has changed their statements numerous times and made totally self-

contradictory statements in relation to what happened to my data.

Despite my extensive evidence, the school continued to falsely claim that they do not have

any of my data left on their IT system.

3) That the school police officer harassed me over the phone in order to stop me from

complaining to external organisations.

This is in breach of section 55 FOI Act. (End of page 87)

(Not to mention the Harassment Act)

4) That the school has breached FOI and SAR disclosure guidelines by 58 days and 50

(working days) respectively over the deadlines prescribed by Data Protection Act and FOI


Their above ignorance of deadlines is in breach of section 47(1) FOI Act on the page 86.

5) That the school has repeatedly provided false information in their responses to my SAR

and FOI notices.This is in breach of section 47(2) FOI Act on the page 86.

6) The common sense, the law and the school’s procedures prescribe that I (as the whistle

blower) should have been provided with the ‘feedback and reassurance’ by the authorities.

I received NO such feedback and reassurance’ ( instead, I was sacked, blackmailed,

harassed, my records were deleted which is against the law), hence I contacted ICO

amongst other organisations..

In April 2017, (Complaint case reference FS50654710) Mrs Cressida Woodall (Lead Case

Officer of ICO) brought the decision which was totally opposite to the above mentioned

school’s safeguarding policy:

ICO decided that I should NOT be provided with ‘feedback and reassurance’.

This way, ICO fully supported Greenwich Council’s and NHS’s requests for total secrecy

relating to their failures (or involvement) relating to the abuse of this child.

Evidently, ICO’s decision totally contravenes the above stated common sense, the law

and the attached school’s health and safety policy (which is a standard across all

organisations that deal with vulnerable children and persons).

Back in April 2017, Mrs Cressida Woodall stated that the above ICO’s decision will be

published on the internet and that my name and address will be removed

(this is ICO’s standard practice to remove details of members of public who request FOI).

On the 1/2/2018, Mrs Cressida Woodall informed me that ICO published my name on the

internet ‘due to an administrative error’ .

Considering ICO’s extensive collusion in this huge cover-up, I strongly believe that ICO

deliberately left my name attached to their decision on the internet for 9 months and then

informed me about it with intention of adding an insult to injury.

e) In relation to my complaint to DFE about the school not following its own “Safeguard

ing policy”:

The first time I complained about the school to DFE was on the 26/3/2016.

On the 6/4/2016, K. Walker of DFE totally ignored my concerns about the school not following

its above policy. Instead, he suggested Teacher Support Network,ACAS, ICO,..

There were numerous DFE emails identical to their above email over the next 6 months.

Then, on the 14/10/2016, M. Richardson of DFE starts insisting that I have to prove that the

school never provided me the feedback, instead of asking the school to provide the evidence

that they did provide me with the feedback according to the school’s own Safeguarding policy.

M. Richardson  was also insisting that I provide DFE with the notes of my meetings with

the school.

M. Richardson  totally ignored the fact that I repeatedly advised DFE that there was no such

meeting, hence I cannot provide DFE with the notes of such meeting.

How can one prove that he was never provided with the feedback from Elvis Presley?

Obviously, DFE’s opinion is highly bizarre and unreasonable to say the least.

Yet again, M. Richardson (Ministerial and Public Communications Division,DFE) on 8/12/2016:

I note that the information you have sent includes various email exchanges and sets out your

own interpretation and detailed account of your allegations of school failures. However, it does

not include any documentation which relates to formal meetings held with the leadership of

the school to specifically discuss your complaint. As advised in our email of 4 November, we

require sight of notes or minutes of any formal meetings held, together with a copy of the

final outcome report from the board of governors.

This would contain decisions made following any appeal panel hearing.”

M. Richardson is also unable to tell the difference between my SAR request and my

complaint/concerns about school failures. For M. Richardson, they are both the same:

I fully appreciate that you suggest that you are being obstructed from progressing your

complaint. However, given that the headteacher has recently replied to your subject access

request email dated 24th October 2016 it is unclear how you have come to this conclusion.

If the school have responded to this email, we would expect that they would also respond to a

formal complaint letter addressed to either the headteacher or the clerk to the board of

governors which has been clearly marked as a ‘Formal Complaint’.”

(M. Richardson’s opinion is that if the school responds to the SAR request, that also means

that they are also following their complaints procedures.

M. Richardson’s opinion is also that the school will consider my complaint once I “clearly

mark” my complaint about school’s failures as “Formal Complaint’ .

Unfortunately, I failed to “clearly mark” any of my 6 emails of complaint to the school (including

my whistleblowing email), or otherwise the school would have then addressed my complaint

and follow its procedures (according to M. Richardson).

M. Richardson also totally ignores the fact that I sent 6 emails to the school already (including

an email to the Chair of Governors) which were never responded to by either the school or its

Chair of Governors.)

Mr Ken Pudsey (Quality Assurance Manager, School Complaints Unit,Ministerial and Public

Communications Division) of DFE on 21/12/2016:

We can only intervene prior to the full complaint procedure having been completed in limited

circumstances. Additionally, we have clarified the type of evidence we would require in order

establish the school’s adherence to its complaint procedure.

As you have been unable to provide such evidence we are unable to consider the matter


As can be seen from above, Mr Pudsey still insists that I should provide him with the notes

of meetings that never happened.

However, in the same letter, Mr Pudsey then changed his mind, and finally decided to contact

the school in order to ask them to provide evidence of following their own procedures:

However, for the avoidance of doubt, I would like your consent to contact the school

upon commencement of the new term and satisfy myself that you have not been

unfairly obstructed from making a formal complaint. “

Mr Pudsey of DFE on 18/1/2016:

Thank you for providing me with your consent to contact Thomas Tallis School to discuss your


But, Mr Pudsey has now decided that he will NOT contact the school:

I have established that our previous advice to you (that the department has no grounds to

become involved) is correct.”

As you were a member of staff at the school, it would not be appropriate for the issues you

have raised to be considered under the school’s complaint procedure.

The school has a Whistleblowing Procedure which is intended for staff members to raise

concerns or grievances.”

And these are his reasons for not investigating whether the school followed its own

safeguarding and whistleblowing policy/whistleblowing procedure:

It would be inappropriate for the School Complaint Unit to consider the school’s adherence to

its complaint procedure in your relation to your case, as we would expect for the school to

respond to all staff concerns and grievances in line with its publicised Whistleblowing Policy.”

(What happens in the cases when DFE’s above “expectations” are proven wrong?

Surely, Mr Pudsey is of the opinion that DFE’s expectations are always right.

Anyhow, considering that DFE “expects the school” to follow its procedures, then obviously,

Mr Pudsey’s DFE department should be closed down and he should be out of job, because

he will have no role to fulfil anymore.

Yet again, DFE’s claims insult intelligence.)

I never questioned the appropriateness and legality of the school’s statutory policies, but Mr

Pudsey clearly makes an attempt to reinforce his above futile and illogical argument:

The department is satisfied that the school has the appropriate statutory policies in

place required under education law, and that these policies meet legislative requirements.”

Mr Pudsey on 15/2/2016:

After further contact with Thomas Tallis School, I have reviewed the advice I gave you in my

email of 18 January 2017.

As you are no longer employed at the school in any capacity, neither the school’s internal

grievance procedures, nor its whistleblowing policy are accessible to you.

Therefore, the school’s complaint procedure remains the most appropriate forum for you to

raise any concerns you still believe to be outstanding. Please accept my apologies for the


(Mr Pudsey is now of the opinion that I cannot complain about school’s failures to follow its

own procedures (to provide the feedback to the referrer and not to delete referrer’s data)

because I am not employed by the school.This is totally false and illogical.)

I repeatedly reminded DFE since June 2016 that I took my claim to the Tribunal and that is the

totally separate issue.

Regardless, Mr Pudsey examines my whistleblower’s position and claims that since I am

unemployed, I cannot be “afforded a whistleblower protection”.

His claim is totally illogical, false and irrelevant to my complaint to DFE about the school’s

failures to follow its own procedures:

In terms of whistleblowing, although the Secretary of State for Education is a prescribed

person in respect of matters relating to maintained schools in England, the person making the

complaint must be an employee of the school in order to make a qualifying disclosure and

be afforded the appropriate whistleblower protection.”

DFE is now becoming increasingly more preoccupied with the legalities of my

whistleblowing position.

Mrs Pamela Kearns (Operational Delivery Manager – School Complaints Unit) on 10/3/2017:

Where we can determine that an individual clearly meets the definition of a worker (e.g. a

member of staff employed by a school), the correspondence is allocated to the School

Employment Division (SED).

When someone who does not meet the definition of a ‘worker’ makes a disclosure, the

correspondence is normally passed to the SCU to consider. We generally advise

correspondents to complete the local complaints procedure before we consider the matter


As you stated that you raised concerns two hours before your contract was terminated, you

may meet the definition of a ‘worker’. However, the department cannot confirm whether an

individual is a protected whistle blower.”

( I never asked the DFE to establish whether I was a “worker” or the “whistleblower”, or

not. That is totally irrelevant to my complaint to DFE about the school’s failures to follow

its Safeguarding policy.

I was simply asking DFE for 12 months to investigate the school’s failures and the school’s

disregard for its own safeguarding policy. Evidently, DFE’s intention is to bury my complaint

against the school. )

f) In relation to my complaint to HSE (Health and Safety Executive) about:

the curtain pole being used as the weapon by pupils,

pupil R jumping over the fence every day,

excessive 28 degrees Celsius (82.4 Fahrenheit) at LSU,

2 members of staff who order the Pupil R to sit down and then use 2 fan heaters in order to

force pupil R to take his jacket off,

double glazed windows and doors shut throughout the day and every day under strict

instructions from Mrs Smith and Mrs Wilson.

Mrs Moira Caddick (Concerns Team, HSE) reassured me that she will investigate my above

concerns on the 4/6/2016.

HSE did not refer back to me despite their initial promise, hence I had to chase them up 5

months later.

Mrs Megan Elizabeth Carr ( HM Inspector of Health & Safety, Field Operations Directorate

London, Southern Division, HSE) finally returned my call on the 17/11/2016:

She claimed that HSE went to the school and that the LSU was “not hot”, despite the “hot

weather” and that “everything is O.K”.

Once I probed further, then I realised that the HSE’s inspection was a total charade.

Mrs Carr’s response to my specific queries was:

that the “inspection was done on the 20/7/2016,”

that “there were NO pupils at the school because it was the summer break”,

that “there were the Headteacher and Mrs Maskell present only”,

“We did not see the curtain pole”,

“This issue was never reported before, hence HSE does not have to conduct another


We are not sending reports”,

“We will have to charge you if we write anything”,

“There is no maximum limit for the temperature”

“We conduct inspections randomly, we could not come on the day when pupils are at

the school”

I was deeply disturbed and shocked by above Mrs Carr’s illogical claims, hence I complained to


Below is the response from Mr John Crookes (HM Principal Inspector of Health and Safety,

South East London, Southern Division, Field Operations Directorate, HSE) on 24/11/2016:

I therefore see no purpose in reopening this issue several months further on from the original

concerns you raised in April, particularly as you no longer work at the school and

therefore do not have any direct experience of current conditions.”

(According to Mr Crookes, my complaint is not worth investigating, because I “experienced” the

above bad conditions during my employment, and NOT after my employment ended.

But, that is the very reason why I asked the HSE to go to the school and investigate.

This is totally insulting intelligence.)

Neither Mr Crookes managed to get “any direct experience of current conditions” , simply

because he “inspected” — an empty LSU.(?!)

(He went there with Mrs Carr of HSE during the half term break and he did it deliberately as can

be seen in the bellow paragraph)

Mr Crookes never addressed the issue of curtain pole. He replaced that with the issue of

violence and aggression” . Obviously, he saw none of it because there was nobody at LSU.

Having seen this correspondence, I authorised an investigation focussing on the following

issues to be carried out: (a) violence and aggression risks to staff in particular in the learning

support unit (LSU) and (b) high classroom temperatures as an issue of staff welfare.

For a variety of reasons, it would be unusual for us to visit a school during term time and

school opening hours, not least because we would not wish to disrupt lessons or the running

of the school unless it was absolutely necessary. In fact, our understanding was probably

improved as a result of visiting when we did as it meant that school leaders and

managers were under less pressure and therefore able to devote the time more easily to

answering our questions and explaining their systems and procedures.”

(Mr Crookes’ opinion is that his “understanding” was “improved” because the “school leaders

and managers were under less pressure” because there were no pupils at the school.

The very fact is that there were no pupils and that no lessons were held hence the

conditions at LSU could not have been inspected.

It can only be the members of staff who were turning the heating on at LSU.

Surely, LSU itself was not turning the heating on.

Unfortunately, both Mr Crookes and Mrs Carr were unable to recognise the above facts, or they

chose to ignore them.

But, Mr Crookes even goes further by claiming that empty LSU “improves his

understanding” .

All his above claims are extremely illogical, ludicrous and deeply concerning especially

considering that his above target of investigation was “violence and aggression”.

That is his interpretation of my concerns about the pupils using the curtain pole.

Mr Crookes was also in sharp contradiction by stating “school leaders and managers” with Mrs

Carr who told me on the 17/11/2016 that there were only the Headteacher and her member of

staff Mrs Maskell at the school.

Mrs Carr was also searching for the Union Rep instead of either asking me for further

information or/and going during the lesson times in order to investigate in situ.

Unfortunately, Mrs Carr was unable to get in contact with the Union Rep, hence she

closed the investigation”:

Ms Carr asked to speak to the relevant Trade Union safety representative to establish

whether there were any similar ongoing concerns from existing staff. Unfortunately, this

individual was not present on the day, but Ms Carr obtained their contact details and sent them

an email explaining our visit and inviting them to bring any relevant information to her

attention. After several weeks when she had heard nothing further, it seemed reasonable to

conclude that there were no ongoing concerns and the investigation was closed.”

It is shocking and deeply disturbing that HSE did not provide me with their feedback as


Considering their above ludicrous, self-contradicting and false information, they do not have any

regard for the health and safety issues.

Instead, they make total mockery of those issues.

I complained to all Chief Executives of HSE.

They simply rubber stamped the HSE’s whole above charade.

g) I reported on the 27/3/2016 at the Lewisham Police Station the following offences which

breached “Crown Prosecution- Data Protection laws”:

1) That the school has accessed my data (by braking in to my locker, then stealing my list of

personal passwords), and then erased, amended and blocked my data in order to prevent

the disclosure.

This was in breach of the section 77 FOI Act, because my data contained health and

safety/safeguarding records.

2) That the school has changed their statements numerous times and made totally self-

contradictory statements in relation to what happened to my data.

Despite my extensive evidence, the school continued to falsely claim that they do not have

any of my data left on their IT system.

3) That the school police officer harassed me over my personal phone in order to stop me

from complaining to external organisations.

This is in breach of section 55 FOI Act. (End of page 87)

(Not to mention the Harassment Act)

The police staff (PC S.Holon and PC Forsyth Glen) were refusing to record the above


They were also totally unable to recognise the connection between the above offences and the

above Acts of Law.

They were not helpful straight from the start and were repeatedly confusing the meaning of

personal” and “personnel”, the concept of the data on the hard drive and the server,…

If they instead, went to the school and investigated my reports, a lot of time and energy would

have been saved on both sides. (I also exchanged many emails with them.)

As the consequence, I reported the school’s above offences further.

Unfortunately, I encountered the outright hostility, rudeness and cynicism from the Police force:

1) In relation to my list of my personal passwords which the school stole from my school


Inspector Alexander Kay  (BA(Hons) MSc PGCE ) of DPS (Directorate of Professional

Standards) on 1/6/2016:

There is no evidence of dishonesty when we are probably talking about a piece of paper

with writing on it , that another person may assume has no value and is just rubbish”.

In relation to my complaint about school Police officer abusing his position by

harassing/intimidating me over my private phone to stop my complaints about the

school to the external organisations.

Inspector Kay on 7/7/2017:

If an individual passes on a phone number to another, whether we approve of it or not,

that does not make the matter criminal or mean that anyone has acted with ill intent.

I really don’t see any grounds to complain about the officer.”

2) In relation to the school police officer harassed me over the phone

Sgt Tanya Dovey (Professional Standards Unit) did not properly investigate PC Calladine

(school Police Officer) and repeatedly refused to provide any specifics of her communication

with him.

Instead, she and the Professional Standards Champion ( Superintendent Joseph McDonald)

simply claimed in their report of 20/6/2016 that PC Calladinehas been spoken to”.

Both MPS,DPS and IPCC have been repeatedly refusing for 12 months to record my complaints

of theft , against the school Police Officer (PC Calladine), against Sgt Tanya Dovey and against

the above hostile/rude Inspector Kay.

All 3 above organisations have been using the same excuse to dismiss my above complaints:

To raise concerns about the investigating officer is an abuse of process, as the

investigating officer was NOT part of your original complaint.”

The above means that police officers have an absolute immunity, and that the member of

public can never complain against the police officer. It does not make any sense.

I repeatedly asked all 3 above organisations and the Mayor’s office for policing (MOPAC) to

provide me with their complaints procedure that states their above claim.

They all repeatedly failed to provide me with their complaints procedure and ignored my

requests to forward my complaints to their chief executives.

Regardless, they labelled me repeatedly as an “abuser of process” and on that false

basis they dismissed my numerous complaints.

Yet another deeply shocking and disturbing fact:

If you complain against the police unit, they can choose who is going to investigate them.

(They also have the power to refuse to be investigated by the IPCC.)

Interestingly, it is always that very same police unit that chooses to investigate “itself”.

Inspector Duncan Marriott ( Appeals Unit , DPS) was yet another individual who colluded in the

above cover-up and repeatedly refused to forward my complaint to his superiors.

h) It is “open to interpretation” that my concerns about Pupil R relate to health and safety/

safeguarding despite the fact that even HSE was of totally opposite opinion.

Mrs Yore Michelle (Investigator, Parliamentary Ombudsman) on 1/12/2016:

Mr Vakante also argues that the school should not have deleted his profile on their laptop

because the information on it related to health and safety.

This is a matter open to interpretation.”

(Despite my voluminous correspondence with ICO and Mrs Yore, she was unable to distinguish

between my data on my laptop, my data on my school account and my data on my school email

address that also contained the information related to health and safety/safeguarding of pupils.

Despite my several complaints, she totally ignored me and totally dismissed my complaint

against ICO by using her above false premise of “open to interpretation” and other false and

illogical excuses.)

j) Ofsted did nothing meaningful about my numerous complaints apart from forwarding

them to the Children’s Services who just ticked the box and continued with the cover-up.

I complained to Ofsted on the 23/2/2016 that the school was ignoring my concerns about

health and safety/safeguarding failures of the school.

I was even forced to appeal against the initial Ofsted’s decision not to investigate my


Despite the fact that I already informed Ofsted that I went through the school’s complaint

process and that I was ignored by the school, Mrs Lisa Heywood (Complaints about Schools

Team, Ofsted) states on 26/2/2016:

Ofsted inspectors will only consider the matters in the complaint that relate to our inspection

functions. They will not investigate any individual matters.

Therefore, it is important that you formally raise your concerns through the provider’s own

complaint process, if you have not already done so. This is so your concerns can be fully

considered and the provider given an opportunity to respond to you.

Ofsted is unable to consider your complaint further because:

Your complaint may raise wider concerns about the school however you have not

completed all the formal complaints processes as detailed above.”

1) Ofsted never invited me to provide any further information despite my serious allegations

against the school.

Ofsted never inquired or sought clarification from me.

I made numerous explicit queries to Ofsted over many months.

(For example on the 15/3/2016: “Dear Sir/Madam, Did you pass my health and safety/

safeguarding complaint to the local authority (Greenwich,London)?”)

Instead of answering to my above numerous queries, Ofsted was always sending me their

bellow standard emails. That was going on for many months until :

Thank you for your email.

We have noted the content and passed it on to our complaints against school team.

  A member of this department will reply directly to you if appropriate.

  However, should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.”

On the 23/5/2016, I repeated to Ofsted all the points of my complaint about school’s and also

Children’s Services failures to investigate my concerns.

I also asked Ofsted in the same email to “advise” me “which organisation/individual can

investigate my above complaints/reports regarding school’s health and safety/safeguarding


On the 5/6/2016, Mr Steve Cockbill (Complaints about Schools Team, Ofsted), totally ignored

my above query and stated that “Ofsted is not the regulator for schools”.

My response to Mr Cockbill on the same day (of 5/6/2016) contained information about:

the untrained staff working at LSU

(both Mrs Smith and Mrs Wilson were not trained to deal with challenging pupils)

and that Department of Education, Police and Health and Safety Executive claim that

issues of my complaint come under Ofsted’s jurisdiction.

I also asked Mr Cockbill whether Ofsted raised my “complaint with Greenwich Children’s

services about their inaction regarding school’s health and safety/safeguarding failures.”

I also asked Mr Cockbill “whether Ofsted’s next inspection of Children’s services is

scheduled in the next 6 months”,

I also informed Mr Cockbill that:

Ofsted did not inspect Greenwich Children’s services for 3 and a half years, in breach

of Ofsted’s own guidelines that prescribe that frequency of “single inspections” is once in

maximum 3 years. Why should anyone (member of staff or pupil) suffer in the


Mr Cockbill totally ignored my above email of 5/6/2016.

2) Ofsted never provided me with either school’s or Children’s Services’ response.

3) Ofsted never informed me that they communicated with the school or Children’s

Services and that the eventual Ofsted’s decision was to do: nothing.

4) Ofsted repeatedly refused to verify/inspect (Mr Andrew Wright, Her Majesty’s Inspector for

London region on 27/1/2017, Mr Sam Hainey, Her Majesty’s Inspector for our London region

on 17/3/2017 and Mr Dimitrios Gavrilakis, Executive Correspondence Officer, Ofsted on

31/3/2017) whether the Winchmore Tutors agency’s safeguarding staff have attended

relevant training in terms of safeguarding children despite the fact that the above agency is

very large (500 members of staff), that it operates across all educational authorities across

England and that it has 6 summer camps for children.

(According to the Winchmore Tutors’ policy, their safeguarding officers have to pass the test

every 2 years. Winchmore Tutors have repeatedly instructed me to “move on” and “put this

behind.” Winchmore Tutors did not pass my concerns to any supervising body.

Instead, they sacked me straight after the school complained to them that I reported this

matter to Ofsted. Ofsted could not care less about the above facts. )

j) In my FOI request on 26/9/2016, I asked the NHS Trust the following information related to the quality of care for Pupil R:

Did manageress Mrs Francesca Kamei make ANY contact with your hospital regarding

the below mentioned anorexic/emaciated pupil during the period of year 2015 and ending in

February 2016?”

She claimed that your hospital doctors did not cooperate with the school and did not

return her numerous phone calls related to the health of this pupil.”

BACKGROUND information relating to Mrs Francesca Kamei

Mrs Francesca Kamei is the safeguarding manageress of Thomas Tallis School, Kidbrooke

Park Road,London SE3 9PX”

Mrs Kamei claimed back in January 2016 that the Pupil R is the “highest risk pupil” (in the

school of 1800pupils) in terms of his poor mental and physical health.”

She also claimed that her calls to hospital doctors were not returned by the very same

doctors who were treating his anorexia.(?!). Was this your hospital?

( I requested the above information because it relates to the quality of care provided by both

the school and the hospital in relation to the health and safety/safeguarding of Pupil R and

other children at Thomas Tallis school.

If Mrs Francesca Kamei and/or NHS doctors are failing in their roles, than it affects wider

public, hence this matter is in the public interest.

King’s College Hospital Trust has repeatedly refused to disclose any of the above

information on the basis that it was “sensitive personal data related to a third person”, despite

the very fact that my request for information was centred only on Mrs Kamei’s alleged

communications with hospital doctors who were not (according to Mrs Kamei) returning her


The above Trust has also totally ignored the overriding principles when it comes to the

disclosure of information related to the health and safety of the members of public:

FOI Act, Section 38, par. 31:

FOIA factors that would favour disclosure:

bringing to light information affecting public health and safety;

circumstances where disclosing information would reduce potential danger to people by

making them aware of various risks and enabling them to take appropriate action.

On the 13/4/2016, ICO simply rubber stamped the Trust’s decision to disclose nothing about

communications between Mrs Kamei and the hospital doctors. (ICO reference: FS50654710)

k) I complained about the Headteacher (Mrs Carolyn Roberts) to the NCTL (National College

for teaching) back in September 2016.

My complaint was about the Headteacher’s total disregard of school’s own procedures/

guidelines and about her orchestrating the cover-up of her failures relating to the health and

safety/safeguarding of pupils.

Initially, I was ignored twice, and I was even forced to appeal on 29/9/2016 against

NCTL’s refusal to investigate my complaint about the Headteacher’s gross misconduct.

Hence, NCTL made it as hard and frustrating as possible for me to complain about the


Eventually, NCTL then appointed solicitors who were supposed to investigate my complaint.

The NCTL’s solicitor was Mrs Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson solicitors firm.

The only thing I ever received from her (over the 5 month period) were her

acknowledgements of my numerous emails.

There was never any constructive feedback from NCTL.

Bizarrely, neither the above solicitors or NCTL ever asked me for any further

information, clarification,.. of my allegations.

Eventually, NCTL brought their decision to absolve the Headteacher of any wrongdoing

despite my overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

During NCTL’s “investigation”, Mrs Roberts made allegations of my “poor performance” to


Instead of dismissing her allegations which were proven to be totally false, NCTL accepted Headteacher’s totally false allegations as the “evidence” of my “poor performance” , that “following a conduct meeting” it was established that I was “unsuitable to work in the school”.

NCTL’s mindset is when the Headteacher “alleges” something, that immediately counts as the “evidence”.

Unfortunately, the above magic of increasing the credibility by “alleging” something does not apply to me as far as NTCL is concerned. – It only applies to managers and Headteachers, and one of them is – the Headteacher Mrs Roberts.

NCTL totally ignored the fact that there was noconduct meeting” and that there was no evidence of it (notes, witnesses, date,..).

NCTL also totally ignored the evidence of my good performance and the evidence that I was sacked “primarily” due to funding.

NCTL totally ignored the fact that this matter was solely about Mrs Roberts’ misconduct.

Instead, NCTL then aimed their focus on my “poor performance” and then arrived to the conclusion that Mrs Roberts performed well.(?!)

Even if my performance was “poor”, that should not validate Mrs Roberts orchestrating the

breaking into my locker, stealing my list of passwords, deleting/blocking/amending my

data and the school police officer harassing me.

Not to mention that Mrs Roberts’ main role in the cover-up involving the school staff and

Children’s Services was exposed in their internal emails which I also provided to the NCTL.

Despite all the above facts, NCTL legitimised the whole above misconduct of Mrs Roberts.

NCTL was particularly impressed with Mrs Roberts when she “repeatedly stated” something

(as NCTL puts it), as if by repeating something its credibility is improving until it finally becomes

the truth.

Surely, I repeated myself many times in my submissions to NCTL.

Unfortunately, the above magic of increasing the credibility by repetition does not apply to me

as far as NTCL is concerned. – It only applies to managers and Headteachers, and one of them

is – the Headteacher Mrs Roberts.

Evidently, NCTL’s mindset is:

If Mrs Carolyn Roberts claims that the boats cannot fly, she will not be trusted.

If Mrs Carolyn Roberts claims that the boats can fly, she will not be trusted.

If the Headteacher Carolyn Roberts claims that the boats can fly, she will be trusted.

Considering all the above, I complained to the NCTL.

Mr Steve McCarthy ( Corporate Services Manager,Teacher Services Division) stated the

following in his email of 10/3/2017:

“If a case is considered by a determination panel and closed, further evidence is not

requested from the referrer.”

Mr McCarthy’s above statement proves that none of my evidence was ever considered

by NCTL despite the fact that I was sending it for 5 months and from the very first day of my

complaint to NCTL.

If any of my evidence was considered, surely then NCTL would have requested further

evidence, but they never did so.

Both NCTL and NCTL’s solicitor did not even have the decency to inform me that the panel’s

hearing was over whilst I was still sending evidence to them for further months.

Another disturbing aspect is that NCTL dismisses further evidence because the panel hearing was already conducted and the “case is closed”.

That means that the Headteacher is absolved of any wrongdoing/misconduct despite the evidence to the contrary, just because the panel prematurely “closed” the case.

How can this be?

Common sense expects that NCTL would consider further evidence of the Headteacher’s

misconduct and not just simply dismiss it because the “case is closed”.

Yet another disturbing aspect is that I was informed by the NCTL staff that my complaint about the Headteacher will be on the NCTL’s record, and that if I provide any future evidence, then the NCTL will consider it.

This is totally opposite from what Mr McCarthy stated above.

l) Once I learned that I was dismissed “primarily” due to “funding”, I contacted the NAO

(National Audit Office).

Subsequently, I learned that there was some history (in the year 2014) of questionable financial

activities and non-disclosure of its related information ( the Council’s stated reasons for non-

disclosure were that they were “cautious” and that it was “confidential”) at both Thomas Tallis

school and the Greenwich Council see School mislead National Audit Office [26]:

It relates to the “nil” cost of the Headteacher’s bathroom at the school office,

( the bathroom installation was actually paid from PFI funds)

school’s funding for special needs pupils, expenditure on staff/management and recruitment

consultants, hotels and entertainment for staff, PFI funding,.. (ICO Reference: FS50524474).

NAO has put me in contact with Mr Paul Dossett (Partner, Audit For Grant Thornton UK LLP)

on the 29/6/2016.

Mr Dossett advised me on the 29/6/2016 that he will “respond in due course once” he has

investigated progress”.

There was no communication from him until the 16/11/2016 when he informed me that he was

advised that “Thomas Tallis school has become an academy”, hence it is not up to his

office to audit the school.

I was very surprised by this information, I investigated and then I informed him that he was

being misled. [27]

Evidently, someone from the school did not want Mr Dossett’s office to audit the school

for reasons only known to them.

m) On the 10/5/2017, Government’s safeguarding guru/expert professor Andrew Roland claims

that my whistleblowing disclosure about systemic failures was “unsolicited”.

He also falsely claimed that I sent him a “series of unsolicited e-mails”.

(I only sent him a single email in which I provided him with my whistleblowing disclosure.)

Instead of passing on my concerns to the relevant organisation, he was hostile to me and chose

to collude in the cover-up. Evidently, he does not care about safeguarding and his mindset is

incompatible with the concept of whistleblowing.

n) On the 2/2/2017, Mr Graham Ritchie (Head of Policy of Children’s Commissioner’s Office)

claimed: “We would like to raise your concerns directly with the Director of Children’s Services

for Greenwich Council.”

Despite his above promise, he did – nothing.

On the 24/7/2017, Angelique Robold (Head of Advice, Help at Hand, Children’s Commissioner’s

Office) stated: “We do not have the statutory power to undertake our own investigation or to

overturn the decisions of other bodies”.

Evidently, despite my voluminous correspondence with Children’s Commissioner’s Office

nothing was done.

p) IICSA was not interested at all to investigate what happened to the anorexic/emaciated pupil

about whom I have been raising concerns.

IICSA repeatedly refused to hear my evidence of systemic failures, safeguarding system’s total

ignorance (of procedures and the Law) and the cover-up.

IICSA also repeatedly refused to look into my complaint of mistreatment/blacklisting and

harassment of whistleblowers.

IICSA also repeatedly refused to pass on my information to the Police operation “Hydrant”.

On the 31/8/2017, Mrs Helen Ryan (Head of Truth Project Coordination, IICSA):

Unfortunately we would need to have a conversation with the young person about the events

and to enquire about whether he consented to his information being passed on before we

considered making a referral. As such I can confirm that there has been no referral to Operation


I responded on the same day (31/8/2017), and informed yet again Mrs Ryan that all

organisations did not follow the safeguarding procedures that prescribe the “reassurance”

and “feedback” to the whistleblower.

I also provided her with the school’s Safeguarding procedure (it is the same procedure across all

the schools/institutions that have children in their care) and informed her that the safeguarding

procedures do not prescribe that the child has to be “consented” that information (about the

quality of school’s care for that child) is “passed on” to the whistleblower.

It is the – school that has to reassure the whistleblower or IICSA that they provide the quality

care. It is not the child who is supposed to reassure and provide feedback to the whistleblower


Evidently, this is also a common sense, but Mrs Ryan was of the different opinion.

She was adamant that the child has to provide “reassurance” and “feedback”

Regardless, why is it such a big issue for IICSA to contact this child and ensure that he is

safe especially considering that this was NOW the only option (according to Mrs Ryan) to

investigate my serious concerns? I urged Mrs Ryan to contact this child.

There was no response from IICSA after my above email.

q) I wanted the Police to independently verify that the anorexic pupil (whom I used to teach at

Thomas Tallis School) – is O.K. 

On the advice of Shirley Oaks Survivors Charity, I contacted operation Winterkey on the

22/9/2017. I found the Winterkey’s police attitude extremely shocking.

The police officer (Lever or Lee or Rhys?) from operation Winterkey had a rather strange

(bordering patronising/rude/hostile) attitude:

 1)  He was probing me and my reasons for me blowing the whistle instead of investigating

my allegations. 

      He was looking into any excuse NOT to investigate my concerns about the boy.

      He asked me whether I was a journalist because he “does not want this matter to be

splattered over the newspapers”.

      I said I was the teacher of this pupil and that I emailed my concerns to my line manageress

20 months ago.

      He then asked me what my “angle” was.

    I responded that I do not have any “angle” and that I have been raising concerns which were

never investigated by any supervising authority.

2) He stated that my reason for contacting Winterkey was that I am “probably looking forward to

being vindicated and proven right about (my) concerns”.

3) He stated that he cannot “simply look through the police records because someone will ask

him why was he searching for the details of this anorexic boy”.

4) He stated that I cannot prove that anorexic pupil was abused, hence police investigation is

not warranted. 

    ( I informed him that the school’s Safeguarding Officer declared in her own sworn statement

that everything I stated is true. He totally ignored that fact.

He also ignored the fact that the Greenwich Council chose “not to deny” or to “admit” that the

anorexic pupil was subjected to the sexual abuse. 

    He also repeatedly ignored the fact that Greenwich Council repeatedly promised to investigate

my concerns about the pupil, but never did so.)

5) He refused twice to provide me with his email address so I can send him more information/

evidence of my allegations.

6) Once I informed him that I documented everything including the names of individuals (from

supervising organisations) involved, relevant dates and that I can provide him with the

evidence of the huge cover-up, he responded that I will “now very probably ask for his full

name but he will not give it to me.”

    I responded that I do not need his name and that the only thing I have been asking is to get to

the bottom of this matter and to get the “reassurance and feedback” as prescribed by the

Safeguarding policy.

7) He stated that he deals only with old cases of abuse and that he does not know which Police

Unit deals with cases of current sexual abuse.

 8) He phoned me afterwards to inform me that he looked in the police records relating to the

Thomas Tallis school and that he could not find anything relating to the anorexic pupil.

He used that “fact” to refuse starting the police investigation.

 My response was that lack of Police records does not indicate that abuse was not taking


    Lack of any police records might also be because of the cover-up.

    It was rather strange that there were NO police records especially considering that anorexic

pupil was always roaming the school grounds unaccompanied and jumping over the school

fence every day around 1 p.m. thus leaving the school unaccompanied and without


   In these kinds of situations, the school’s police officer (PC Calladine) gets involved and talks

to the pupils and parents because there might be the case of bullying, abuse,..

  He completely ignored my above assertions, but he said that “someone needs to speak to the

anorexic pupil, but he is not the one to do so”. 

    I asked who it is, and he responded that he cannot continue this conversation, because I was

“clogging the line” and that “many people are calling him in relation to the past cases of

abuse, hence this matter is now over”.


All the above information provides only a small glimpse of how relevant authorities and

supervising organisations perceive and treat members of public who raise health and safety/

safeguarding concerns.

None of the above supervising authorities never asked me for any further information/evidence

or to clarify my allegations of the school’s health and safety/safeguarding failures and never

referred anything back to me about the Pupil R.

Despite receiving assurances and reassurances of several aforementioned individuals of those

organisations, there has not been an investigation of my concerns since 12/2/2016 when I was


I wrote to chief executives of each of the above organisations, but they simply rubber stamped

every illogical, ludicrous, self-contradicting and false response from their organisation.

Their organisation’s mindset is totally incompatible with the most basic concepts of:

care for the fellow human beings, common sense, honesty, integrity and ethics.

Instead, they treat oblivious taxpaying members of general public with utter contempt.

Evidently, their mindset is dictated by multi-agency and inter-agency protocols that prescribe:

If Mrs X claims that the boats cannot fly, she will not be trusted.

If Mrs X claims that the boats can fly, she will not be trusted.

If the Manager Mrs X claims that the boats can fly, she will be trusted.

All the above organisations knowingly acted against Public Interest.

Evidently, this extensive cover-up could not just be about protecting the reputations of the

school’s and Council’s managers.

I was waiting for the safeguarding experts to contact me for 25 months.

Since there was no contact from the safeguarding experts, I finally decided to research myself

on the internet about the patterns of behaviour of Pupil R and his other symptoms which I listed

in my previous paragraphs and in my whistleblowing email.

Several of his symptoms are identical in victims of the sexual child abuse.

My whistleblowing email lists some of his bellow stated symptoms:


He is a boy who suffers from anorexia

(bellow information indicates that girls are mostly affected by anorexia due to their obsession

with skinny body image),

His condition developed when he was around the age of 13 (and his condition was severely

deteriorating over the period of next 1.5 years),

He is the “Highest Risk Pupil” (according to the Safeguarding Manageress” out of 1,800 pupils

at Thomas Tallis school), points to the fact that something seriously detrimental to his health

was taking place.

“The incidence of sexual abuse in eating disorder patients appears significant.”


“Boys and men comprise 5% to 10% of all patients. Overall, anorexia nervosa occurs in

approximately 1% of child, teen, and adult populations”

“Because the child’s body has been assaulted, it is often the body that is used to discourage

further attacks.

…anorexia as method of making the body unattractive, trying to make it disappear

( he was in emaciated state ,he was always wearing the same thick and long red skiing jacket


“The child’s strategy is based on the belief that if he is sick, then he is less attractive.

It also gives him more attention from others (he was often seeking attention with his

misbehaviour) potentially keeping him safe from the perpetrator(s).”

Methods of coping and trying to deal with the feelings:”


(He did not want to engage in any learning activity, he had no friends),

Body shyness

(He was not doing any sports activity),

Excessive clothing”

(He was always wearing his thick and long red skiing jacket despite the fact that the LSU’s

temperature was excessive: 82.4 Fahrenheit, just because 2 members of LSU staff constantly

“felt cold” – then they were forcing him to take his jacket off by sitting him down and then

exposing him to 2 heat blowers in the already hot environment of 82.4 Fahrenheit),


(He was most of the time fidgety and anxious),

Chronic depression”

(he was often depressed and disinterested)


(he was NEVER taking off his thick red jacket, he was refusing to attend regular classroom

lessons and even the lunch break because there will then be too many pupils around him – thus

he was jumping over the school fence EVERY day around 1p.m.)


“Anxiety, Depression, Change in eating habits”

(His anorexic/emaciated state),


(He was never following any instructions),


(He was not engaging in any learning activity, he was avoiding interaction with pupils and

members of staff by just sitting and doing nothing or playing video games and drawing cartoon

characters which he eventually finds “boring”.)

Runaway behaviour”

( He used to walk unaccompanied around school grounds EVERY day, then he comes back to

LSU, spends some time there, then walks around school grounds again, then comes back to

LSU, then leaves LSU and then jumps over the school fence EVERY day around 1 p.m.),

Change in attitude towards school or academic” performance

(He was not attending any regular classroom lessons for 1.5 years. Instead, he was always at


Lack of interest in friends “ (he was without friends and he did not want to have any friends),


(He never did any sports activity) or other activities (everything was “boring” to him),

Poor self-esteem, avoidance of relationships”

(He did not feel that he can learn anything, he had no friends, he was always isolating himself),

Unexplained or frequent health problems like headaches or stomach aches”

(He was often suffering from those aches)

Considering the extensive cover-up and the above symptoms of Pupil R, one is forced to

reach a very uncomfortable conclusion.

My civic duty was to report the wrongdoing, and then it should have been up to the supervising

organisations to investigate my concerns/complaints.

Unfortunately, despite their repeated assurances and my very extensive efforts, they did nothing

for 25 months. Therefore, all the above information, the specifics and the evidence of the

extensive cover-up

orchestrated by the numerous supervising organisations in relation to my above concerns about

Pupil R, I passed to the relevant committee with the purpose of it being on the public record.

Both the Council and the school repeatedly refused to provide any information about

Pupil R, even in redacted form.

Mrs Smith did not disclose any information to me about Pupil R or any other pupil.

(She even boasts in writing to her superiors and wants to reassure them – that she told me

nothing about the troubles of Pupil R).

Why is there such secrecy about the Pupil R that the disclosure of any information (relating

to the quality of his care provided by the school) has been repeatedly refused (even in the

redacted form) ?

This did not happen about the information relating to any other pupil.

(Other pupils’ information was redacted and then provided by both the school and the agency in

their SAR’s and in their Tribunal bundle.)

Hence, the following questions still remain:

What happened with Pupil R?

Is he well?

Is he safe?

If he is still at Thomas Tallis school, how is the school addressing his needs?

Are there any learning objectives established to support his educational needs?

What happened to the funding which should have been allocated to support his needs?

What actions did the school take in order to ensure that conditions at LSU improve (curtain pole

should be inaccessible to pupils, both pupils and staff should not be exposed to extreme


  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • Fresh Start Foundation Scottish not for profit group, helping child sexual abuse victims & survivors  [N]


[1] Mick V – Supervising organisations did nothing about my concerns relating to the possible abuse and neglect of the child

[2] 2018 Mar 7 cathy fox blog Child Safeguarding Whistleblower, Thomas Tallis School Part 1- Cover Up

[2a] Mick V – Thomas Tallis – The Cover Up

[3] Complaint 1 to Greenwich Children’s Services

[4] Complaint 2 to Greenwich Children’s Services

[5] Email chain between me and Counsellor Hyland on 5-9-2016

[6] Email chain between me and Counsellor Hyland on 8-12-2016

[7] Email from Greenwich Children’s Services

[8] Headteacher Ms Carolyn Roberts ADMITTED that she falsely claimed that she did not have any evidence relating to my good performance

[9] It was Winchmore Tutors, and NOT the Sedgehill school who cancelled my tuition

[10] NSPCC refused to disclose details of the Local Safeguarding Officer (LADO)

[11] Police investigation proves that the school DID provide my phone number to their police officer

[12] School’s BREACH of procedures, guidelines and Law Acts

[13] Supervising organisations did nothing about my concerns relating to the possible abuse and neglect of the child

[14] Winchmore Tutors Agency FALSELY claimed that the Sedgehill school cancelled my tuition

[15] Winchmore Tutors Agency IGNORES my serious concerns about the school

[16] Winchmore Tutors BREACHED satutory guidelines and procedures

[17] “Reassurance and feedback have to be provided to the whistleblower”

[18] Ms Donna Cussack asks the Greenwich Council to “support the school” in order to cover-up my concerns

[19] Headteacher Ms Carolyn Roberts – “Mick had Ofsted onto us. What more can we do?” to Mr Mark Higgins of Greenwich Council

[20] Headteacher Ms Carolyn Roberts ORDERS her staff to blackmail my agency

[21] Headteacher Ms Carolyn Roberts FALSELY claimed to ICO that the school did not give their police officer my phone number

[22] Head of Children’s Services Ms Gillian Palmer – “this is an HR matter rather than complaint about the school”

[23] Deputy Head Mr Shaun Brown – wants to stop me from going to the newspaper with my concerns

[24] Safeguarding records have to be “kept securely and locked – par.2, page 11 Thomas Tallis Safeguarding policy[25] School mislead National Audit Office

[26] Someone complained about Thomas Tallis to ICO pdf

[27] School mislead National Audit Office


[29] “Headteacher’s PA writing on the school’s SAR envelope”

[30] ” Headteacher’s PA writing on the school’s letter”

Let justice be done though the heavens fall – Fiat justitia ruat cælum




About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, London, Schools / teachers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Child Safeguarding Whistleblower, Thomas Tallis School Part 2 – Supervising

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s