Thursday, 14 January 2010

Sweep It Under The Rug

If I was not innocent then :
  • I would have immediately reported the incident myself.
  • I would have confessed during the police interview at the time of my arrest. (Until you experience being arrested, you can not imagine the stress of the situation. It would take a much harder individual to consider lying under such circumstances !)
  • I would not have appealed against the findings of the disciplinary hearing.
  • I would not have undergone a polygraph examination to prove my innocence.
  • I would not have passed the polygraph examination.
  • I would not have exhausted my life’s savings in legal defence costs.
  • I would not have written about my experience and my opinions on a public blog.
  • I would not have allowed my story to be exposed and reported by the media.
  • I would not have shared information with senior members of government, including Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Jack Straw, David Cameron, Michael Gove and Barry Sheerman.
  • I would not have contributed material to the House of Commons Select Committee Meeting of 17 June 2009.
  • I would not have written to Her Majesty The Queen.
  • I would not continue to fight against this injustice.
I can prove that :
  • Lancashire County Council failed to provide ‘natural justice’.
  • Lancashire County Council denied me all my rights that were applicable to the policies and procedures relating to ‘Handling Allegations Against Staff’.
  • Lancashire County Council sanctioned an investigation by the head teacher knowing that there was a history of significant resentment.
  • Lancashire County Council denied my request to appear before an independent panel of governors due to the complex inter-relationships that existed between Duke Street Primary School governors and witnesses that precluded any possibility of a fair hearing. (The hostile witnesses were governors of the school. Another governor was the supply teacher who filled my vacancy - it was to her financial benefit that I did not return.)
  • Lancashire County Council sanctioned an untrained and inexperienced disciplinary hearing committee that comprised a local florist and his employee. (All floral requirements of the school were supplied by this committee member !)
  • Lancashire County Council intentionally excluded a governor at the appeal hearing.
  • Lancashire County Council denied any consideration of character references / statements.
  • Lancashire County Council attempted to silence me through litigation - they threatened me with a breach of the ‘principles of confidentiality’.
  • Lancashire County Council attempted to silence me through bribery - they offered me £10,000 on the proviso that I did not discuss my case with anyone - including my own family !
  • Lancashire County Council prevented the involvement of one member of their staff from speaking on my behalf.
  • Lancashire County Council reinstated my position yet upheld the allegation of assault. Their action had only one intent - to prevent me taking my case before an independent and impartial hearing at an employment tribunal.
  • The head teacher’s investigation and report was biased and set out to prove guilt at any and all costs.
  • Evidence and statements that did not support the head teacher’s ‘beliefs’ were excluded.
  • Statements were not signed or dated. The signatures and dates on my statement were removed.
  • The hearing committees were not thorough in their consideration of presented evidence. (They missed fundamental context of my statement.)
  • One key ‘hostile’ witness intentionally lied. Her decision to lie and to ‘lie by omission’ not only prejudiced my case but that of the child. Her action, as a teacher, failed to honour and respect the safety of children.
  • The school had failed to adhere to child protection policies. At the time of the allegation, staff had received no Child Protection training for over three years. There were staff working with children whose CRB status had not been verified.
    (I had occasion to write to Helen Denton’s predecessor, Pat Jefferson, on this very point.)
I have written to Helen Denton, Lancashire County Council, Executive Director for Children and Young People on several occasions to express my concerns with regard to the failings of her departments and their members.

Without qualification, she replied : “I do not feel that it is in the best interests of all of the parties involved for this to be re-examined.”

On Monday, 11 January 2010, I provided Helen Denton with evidence showing that a ‘key’ hostile witness had lied and perjured themselves at both the disciplinary and appeal hearings.

Helen Denton immediately replied : “I do not see that does anything to change the current position with regard to your own closed case, so the situation remains that no further action will be taken within Lancashire County Council.”

Lancashire County Council had not even started considering the evidence that I provided, how can they then say it has no bearing on my case ?

Understanding the reasons why one witness chose to lie might provide a basis for explaining why others also lied.

Nothing has made any sense throughout my case.

It was claimed that I hit the girl so hard that she continued to suffer from post-traumatic abuse a year later. It was agreed that, at the time, she showed no reaction nor did any other children – that is not possible … it sounds like another ‘immaculate conception’ story … but I know it never happened – that is the truth and that’s what I can not bear and I will have to fight that injustice forever !

I was judged on ‘Balance of Probability’. Even in this brief summary, can anyone believe that I am guilty ?

The problem for Lancashire County Council is that they dare not and can not allow my case to be re-examined. To do so, would expose their failings and all those directly involved whose actions and inactions resulted in the destruction of my career and my life.

So their only recourse is to continue to ‘sweep it under the rug’ and then to ‘look the other way’.

They know that I will continue in my ultimate goal - I want the justice that they denied me - and the girl, for she was not given justice either.

I want my case re-examined by an independent body who are experienced and impartial - is that too much to ask ?

How much would it cost ? Very little. The value to me would be incalculable as would the lessons to be learnt that might benefit everyone in the future.

All that I want is justice and an end to my suffering and pain - a time when I can move on with my life and never have to look back at what is approaching three years of utter horror and from which there is no escape !

Today, the very core and fabric of my life has been destroyed. I am effectively homeless as my financial state is such that I could no longer afford the mortgage payments on my home ...

... a criminal is given better and fairer treatment and regard to them as a person. At least they can expect an impartial trial before a qualified judge and jurors. A criminal can appeal and not expect to come before the same quango court. A criminal is sentenced to a fixed term and can expect remission. A criminal has an expectation of a life at the end of their sentence. There is an end to the incarceration of a criminal. I did not experience such luxuries nor do I have any hope for the future.

All that I wish for is that my name be cleared and an end to this torment – living with the knowledge that I am innocent and did not receive a fair hearing is a burden that continues to devour my life.

Any miscarriage of justice is a travesty – all that I request is that my case be re-opened and re-assessed. I want to answer all questions before an impartial audience – to be given ‘natural justice’.

Monday, 11 January 2010

Lies Of Omission

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it’s a gross violation of another person’s right of self-determination.

A lie of omission is the most insidious, most pervasive, and most common lie on the entire planet. Commonly, those who use this type of lie, have conned themselves into believing that to intentionally remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up is not a lie at all. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their silence deceives, misleads, and often causes untold grief and misery, they refuse to speak the truth.

There is also the common misconception that intentional deception by silence has no consequences. Lies of commission (telling a lie) and lies of omission (withholding the truth) are both acts of intention deception.

To lie is to make statements that are untrue, when the falsity of such statements is known or suspected by the speaker. A lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener’s interests. A lie (also called prevarication) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone’s feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else.

Startling to most people is that, in considering whether a statement is a lie, the least important consideration is whether it is true ! The more important considerations are : Did he believe it ? Did he intend to deceive ? Was he trying to gain some advantage or to harm someone else ? Is it a serious matter, or a trivial one ? Even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive. It is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered. How can that be ? If a completely truthful and accurate statement is deliberately delivered in a manner that suggests that it should not be taken seriously, then it is a lie. Also, it is a lie when a person accidentally makes a true statement when he thought it was false. It’s the intent to lie that makes it a lie.

Reasons For Not Lying
Philosophers over the millennia have agreed that there is no good reason for lying. Their most important arguments are :

  1. Lying is a perversion of the natural faculty of speech, the natural end of which is to communicate the thoughts of the speaker.
  2. When one lies, one undermines trust in society.
There are different kinds of lies that have different effects and severity. The most important categories of lies are as follows :

A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although a fabrication may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Example of fabrication : A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn’t actually know the directions.

Bold-Faced Lie
A bold-faced lie (often also referred to as bare-faced or bald-faced lie) is one which is told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie. For example, a child who has chocolate all around his mouth and denies that he has eaten any chocolate has told a bold-faced lie. There are political statements that are way beyond exaggeration that would fall in this category.

Lies Of Omission
One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that an unrepaired fault was reported at the last service. Another example of lying by omission happens when one person witnesses, or has knowledge of, a lie by a second person to a third (who subsequently relies upon the veracity of the lie) but does not inform the third person of the lie; Here, two people are lying to the third person.

Misleading Statement
A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. Dissembling likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading. Sarcasm and obfuscation are frequently used to mislead or dissemble.

Contextual Lies
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Quoting out of context is a classic example. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say “Yeah, that’s right, I slept with your best friend” utilizing a sarcastic, offended tone, may cause the listener to assume the speaker did not mean what he said, when in fact he did.

For children, lying is a learned habit : Evolutionary psychology is concerned with the theory of mind which people employ to simulate another’s reaction to their story and determine if a lie will be believable. The most commonly cited milestone in the rising of this, what is known as Machiavellian Intelligence, is at the human age of about four and a half years, when children begin to be able to lie convincingly. Before this, they seem simply unable to comprehend that anyone doesn’t see the same view of events that they do - and seem to assume that there is only one point of view - their own - that must be integrated into any given story. If we grew up and lived in total isolation, lies would not exist for lack of need - there would be no one to lie to !

When children first learn how lying works, they lack the moral understanding of when to refrain from doing it. It takes years of watching people tell lies, and the results of these lies, to develop a proper understanding. Propensity to lie varies greatly between children, some doing so habitually and others being habitually honest. Habits in this regard are likely to change in early adulthood. Some never learn this lesson, or at least not the universality of the lesson. In one respect, they are lying to themselves for thinking that it is acceptable to lie when it is convenient or to their perceived benefit.

One standard form of legal oath before making a deposition or taking the witness stand in a court trial is “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ?” For which the proper response is “I do.” There’s a reason for making the oath so complicated. It’s a reminder to the deposed and the witness how not to lie. The first clause (tell the truth) is the affirmation part of the oath, the second clause (the whole truth) reminds the oath taker to leave nothing out, that is, no lying by omission, no out-of-context lies, and no misleading statements, and the last clause (nothing but the truth) is a reminder to relate no falsehoods, including fabrications.