Saturday, 11 December 2010

Incest Is Rife

“This is like hiring the Ku Klux Klan to represent you in a desegregation case.” James McElroy

Prejudiced Duke Street Governors
Andrew Kidd Head Teacher
Elaine Haddon Teaching Assistant
Elaine Callan Nursery Nurse
Anne Callander Teacher
Sarah Ridley Deputy Head Teacher
Joan Quinton Teacher - Retired
Steve McLoughlin Parent Governor - Wife teacher
Nigel West Florist
Peter Whittle Nigel West’s Delivery Man
Jane Watts Teacher
The above listed people had been governors at Duke Street Primary School - including myself.

Andrew Kidd, head teacher (by default a governor) must be considered to be a hostile participant in my case. His role was supposed to have been impartial - the investigator has to have an open mind and it is for the governors to consider and judge the evidence. He continued to demonstrate through his actions that he held a significant resentment of me, not only as a teacher, but as a human being.
(Ref : Anonymous Text)

Elaine Haddon was the only witness to the incident. By definition, a hostile witness. (Another witness should have been the 5 year old girl. I would have expected to have seen reports produced by Social Services but there were none submitted !)

Elaine Callan, a hostile witness, whose testimony supported Elaine Haddon’s claim that I had been sitting on a stool using a whiteboard. Otherwise, her testimony was largely hearsay.

Anne Callander, another hostile witness, who claimed that I had admitted the assault to her whilst I was in a hysterical fit on the day of my suspension. Recently, she sent my partner an e-mail in which she admits that she had perjured herself. Her confusion had been apparent at both hearings.

(Elaine Haddon and Anne Callander are friends who meet socially and online through Facebook.)

Sarah Ridley had taught at Burscough Primary School where Andrew Kidd had been head teacher and they had shared the same class for some years. Andrew Kidd offered her a teaching post at Duke Street. Since then she has achieved an unprecedented, meteoric rise to deputy head teacher ... this resulted in understandable speculation by Duke Street staff !

Joan Quinton, a supply teacher, who filled my position throughout my suspension. I had known her over many years as a teacher at Duke Street. Her motivation was always that of self-interest. She had been a well liked teacher and had retired many years ago. It was to her financial benefit that I did not return to school !

Steve McLoughlin had an interest in protecting his wife who was a teacher at Duke Street. His wife, Janet, had been fearful of recrimination by Andrew Kidd - so much so, that, even though we had known one another for 20 years, she could not provide me with a character reference :


Nigel West is a local florist in Chorley, Marshalls. He has the contract for the school’s floral requirement and as such has a vested financial interest and therefore an obligation to Andrew Kidd.

Peter Whittle works for Nigel West as a delivery man. It seems unfair and incorrect that he should have attended my disciplinary hearing with his employer.

My hearings could never have been fair or impartial because everyone, in one way or another, had a vested interest.

Everyone knew one another; at best it was a confused mix of divided loyalties and personality clashes; at worst it was an outrageous theatrical farce !

There are 16 governors at Duke Street Primary School, 10 had a predetermined / vested interest in the outcome of my case. One governor was deliberately excluded and another is ‘intellectually challenged’ but had had their hair done for the occasion !

And that was just the tip of the iceberg ! Throw in a couple of Lancashire County Council HR managers who are not averse to adding their lies and to deliberately excluding the only trustworthy and upright Duke Street governor - Mohammed Naeem.

Christine Toward and Robert Sage are other governors of note who should have been prohibited from being involved with the judgement of my case.

Christine Toward had presided over my disciplinary hearing and Robert Sage over my appeal hearing.

They will feature in later discussion in subsequent blog entries.

I close with a special thanks to another governor, Lorraine Nicholls, school secretary. She approached me at the appeal hearing to let me know how much that she had been looking forward to the day and that she had had her hair done especially !

I hope that she enjoyed the day - it is reassuring to know that there was someone there who could recognize the significance and importance of the destruction of my life whilst still enjoying themselves ! (If you ever attend another hearing, don’t forget your knitting !)

Beat that Mary Antoinette !

Just for you Lorraine - At the execution of Mary Antoinette, Madame Tussaud sat knitting.



----- Original Message -----
From: Anne Callander
To: False Allegation
Sent: 05 January 2010 15:49
Subject: Anne Callander sent you a message on Facebook...

As a Headteacher myself I know that the safeguarding and protection of a child is paramount, above all other concerns, and there are procedures that simply have to be followed.

The outcome would have been so different and Jane would still be teaching today if she had accepted that she needed support during the difficult time she was having. Instead she chose a different route.

The Jane I once knew would have taken the correct advice and accept the support offered from the start. She would NOT have ignored the advice from her union, her friends and the supportive network at county. She would NOT have followed the corrosive and destructive path that was advised by her partner whose first contact with her after the suspension was to tell her to “Shut up and don’t say any more”.

None of this was reported at the hearing. I could have done had I chosen to, but I wanted to say as little as possible whilst still telling the TRUTH.

This was the stance I had taken all along which I now know was “sitting on the fence”. I also took this attitude during the phonecalls that I received from Jane possibly giving the impression that I was agreeing with her by responding with “mmmm” and expressive “oh nos” and the like.

...
...


Her e-mail continued but her actions clearly show that she was guilty of lying by omission :

“... I wanted to say as little as possible whilst still telling the TRUTH.”

In her e-mail, she also makes the statement :

“No doubt this is what led to Jane expecting me to lie for her at the hearing.”

I had no such expectation of her or of anyone else but she went ahead anyway and lied for her own reasons ! All that I ever wanted to be presented was the truth but it was witnesses like her and others that chose to lie for reasons that I will never understand that damned me to my life today.

She claims to be a friend but friends do not behave in such a manner - her intent was callous, malicious and scheming, her reasons and rationale are beyond comprehension.

She claims to care about children, their safety being paramount ... but her actions demonstrate that she cared nothing for the well-being of the 5 year old girl, Exxxx ... this is why existing policies and procedures that are there to protect children so often fail with such disastrous results ... because people like her determine their own versions of TRUTH and to hell with the consequences !



Neither I nor my partner can recollect him saying “Shut up and don’t say any more”. But it sounds like good advice when you have such evil and wicked people around who are more than willing and able to take advantage of a person who is suffering so much pain and mental anguish !

Anne Callander is also saying something in her e-mail that is so sinister yet undeniably has substance and validity :

“The outcome would have been so different and Jane would still be teaching today if she had accepted that she needed support during the difficult time she was having. Instead she chose a different route.”

There is an implication that the process of dealing with an allegation of assault by a teacher transcends the truth itself. This is what I have been saying all along – the truth per say was never of any importance. It might be that if I’d grovelled, respected my peers and been remorseful (for something that I’d not done) then somehow it would have all come out right – and bizarrely, I think that she’s probably correct in what she says !

Visitors