Re: Letter to the Head Master
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:04 am
At Husband's sentencing hearing it was said at one point that he resigned. I don't know if this was a slip of the tongue.
Welcome to the unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum - for discussing everything CH/Old Blue related. All pupils, parents, families, staff, Old Blues and anyone else related to CH are welcome to browse the boards, register and contribute.
https://www.chforum.info/php/
The difficulty is "can they prove that the staff member knew and failed...."? Otherwise they lay themselves open to charges of improper dismissal, slander/libel. Just imagine the uproar and legal case if they suddenly put out a news item that "Joe B.... who was a teacher from 19.. to 19.. was aware of gross sexual irregularities but was not reported to the authorities nor sacked"
Or you could type the content in if it isn't too long.Bishbashbosh wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:27 pm A letter from the school arrived today. Typed, hand signed by Reid and Perricone.
I have pics of the letter's body, sans my personal info. I can upload if allowed.
Sorry, maybe I should have said “failed to report an allegation of abuse” - that to me seems to be the issue, as it meant that allegations weren’t investigated, potentially-abused pupils weren’t believed, trusted or and supported, and the potential/actual abusers left and went on to other schools potentially to the same to others, even with an in-tainted record and reference. Innocent until proven guilty, but without a proper investigation, high risk of them being guilty and undetected.....sejintenej wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:08 pmThe difficulty is "can they prove that the staff member knew and failed...."? Otherwise they lay themselves open to charges of improper dismissal, slander/libel. Just imagine the uproar and legal case if they suddenly put out a news item that "Joe B.... who was a teacher from 19.. to 19.. was aware of gross sexual irregularities but was not reported to the authorities nor sacked"
e/o page 1, page 2 to follow (just arriving to work)Our main purpose in writing to you is to apologise on behalf of the Council and the whole of Christ's Hospital for the abuse you suffered when you were at the school. It is a source of great sadness to us that our pupils were treated in such a selfish and unscrupulous way by adults who so fundamentally betrayed the trust placed in them. We are greatful for and admire the strength you have shown in bringing your abuser to justice and hope that there is some comfort in the outcome of the trial for you. The impact that such abuse has on survivors long into their adult lives is clear to us and we are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that we can learn from the lessons of the past.
Today, we recognise that the school must face up to its past and cannot hide from it. It is unthinkable now that the wellbeing and prospects of any adult would be given priority over the welfare of a child. We do everything we can to ensure the safety and happiness of our pupils. This includes commissioning an external specialist to review our current procedures to take us beyond compliance with the law to a place where this aspiration can be realised in every aspect of our teaching and care.
It isn't quite like that, legally if a teacher has 2 years service and the right to claim unfair dismissal, then (and I simplify regarding discrimination and 'whistleblowing'), in order to dismiss for misconduct (e.g. failing to report an incident) a school needs to act 'reasonably' in treating that conduct as sufficient reason to dismiss, and if someone is under 2 years, at most they would get their notice entitlement (which might be quite significant) but could be dismissed with simple notice. That however, might be a term, most schools require long notice from teachers for obvious reasons, to avoid disruption.The difficulty is "can they prove that the staff member knew and failed...."? Otherwise they lay themselves open to charges of improper dismissal, slander/libel.
It can all too easily come down to "he says, I say" and in those days how many organisations had a formal procedure unless forced to have one by the unions? It was simply up to the boss-man.MrEd wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:45 pm
Generally, even if you have unfair dismissal protection after 2 years service, your employer can dismiss you fairly on the basis of a 'reasonable belief' in misconduct if not reporting (assuming that is an understood duty on the teacher), provided that belief is genuinely held on reasonable grounds (i.e. a fair and thorough investigation, and a proper disciplinary process) even if it can't 'prove' that you 'did it'. So, if a malicious group of pupils (or even one) made a convincing allegation against a teacher of abuse or misconduct, the School could dismiss fairly on the basis of those allegations without other corroboration. Where it gets tricky is with notice entitlements as to deprive any employee of notice, the employer must prove it more likely than not that gross misconduct took place.
There can never have been any reason to protect the 'good name of School' by concealing abuse, this could not be noble cause corruption, the successor to the very King who founded the School is there to uphold the laws that make abuse illegal.
I think that we are at cross-purposes here. My very point is that by sacking any abusers (and as I have suggested previously, sticking the press cuttings up in the Common Room and House noticeboards,) the School would have shouted from the rooftops that this was not a place for pervs and paedos.There can never have been any reason to protect the 'good name of School' by concealing abuse, this could not be noble cause corruption, the successor to the very King who founded the School is there to uphold the laws that make abuse illegal.
Quite the converse; if the school had clearly sacked a teacher they could make the point that "we will not tolerate improper behaviour" then that could have been a publicity benefit. However I suspect that their legal eagles would have advised against unless there was clear and irrefutable evidence from third parties such as video/film or several adults who personally witnessed the acts - an unlikely proposition!. Things were different in those days and note that it is the CPS who are preferring the charges today, not the school.
I have suggested that the School disclose any advice sought at the time, but it does not really come down 'he says, I say' in employment law, it comes down to the though-process of the employer assessing the evidence obtained from a fair investigation, and one of the peculiarities of unfair dismissal law is that an Industrial Tribunal (as they then were) is not there to act as a final layer of appeal and decide if a dismissal is right or wrong in an unfair dismissal claim, but to decide if it was 'fair' in terms of being a reasonable decision achieved by a reasonable procedure. Even if a Tribunal thinks it's a tough rap, they are not allowed to substitute their own decision for that of the employer, but are there to see if a reasonable employer could have come to such a decision. Had the School been properly advised, (and that's assuming it ever asked, as asking for advice creates a trail), then it could have dismissed Mr Webb and almost certainly would have won an Industrial Tribunal unfair dismissal claim and a claim for his notice. If he had made a case out of it, then he would only have been putting out evidence that should have been before the Crown Court some time in 1984.It can all too easily come down to "he says, I say" and in those days how many organisations had a formal procedure unless forced to have one by the unions? It was simply up to the boss-man.