Proposed date of Inquiry

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 pm

Proposed date of Inquiry

Postby CBetts » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:33 pm

The Governors have now confirmed the appointment of James Townend Q.C. as Chairman of the Inquiry. Mr Townend is reviewing and finalising the draft Terms of Reference which will be released shortly to all those who have expressed an interest in the Inquiry.

Anyone who has indicated that they might wish to make a submission once the terms of reference are available should note that the Inquiry hearings are planned to be held in central London between 20th and 24th June. As previously indicated any further written submissions will be considered by the Chairman provided they are received by 10 a.m. on Monday 20th June. If this date has to change there will be a further announcement.

Further information will be provided shortly.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:33 am

this is what Mr Townend's chambers say about him

Family Cases of interest include:
Cowcher v Cowcher [1972] 1 WLR 425 - Husband and wife - matrimonial home - divorce

Malone v Harrison [1979] 1 WLR 1353 (Hollins J) (for the Respondent) - Assessment of mistress's needs under s.1(2)(b) and (3) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Re D (A Minor) [1987] AC 317 (HL) (for the Child) - Whether mother's conduct in taking drugs during pregnancy was relevant to a finding that the child's health was being impaired or its proper development being prevented under s1(2) (a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969

Browne v Browne [1989] 1 FLR 291 - Financial provision - overseas trust assets - wife's assets held outside jurisdiction on discretionary trusts

Re W (Minors) (Sexual Abuse; Standard of Proof) [1994] 1 FLR 419 - Care; Contact in care

Cleveland Child Abuse Enquiry (for NALGO)

Mistress's needs?????

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:19 am

That's exactly what I thought! Perhaps she had children with him and wasn't getting any financial support?

Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:40 am

st james independant schools

Postby sugarloaf » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:10 pm

Great to hear the school is moving on with the inquiry?

But C Betts, your statement concerns me slightly.

The time scale seems utterly unrealistic (unless the school wants few submissions to it ???). We now have a week and a half till its due to start, and I don't know what its an inquiry into, or how wide its scope is, as I still haven't seen the Terms of Reference.

Even if I get them tomorrow, this leaves me with 10 days to:
Read and understand the implications of the terms of reference
Decide which of my complaints will be covered by the inquiry
Write my submission
Source any background documentation which is relevant
Contact my mother who I haven't spoken to in 10 years due to SES related family issues, to see if she is willing to back up my specific complaints
Rearrange my diary so I can attend, without yet knowing for which day
Send my submission to arrive before this deadline.

Surely theres no point in having an inquiry unless people can contribute to it

I know a number people who want to participate in the inquiry, but haven't notified the school yet, as they don't know what the inquiry is into yet. Does this mean that they are now excluded from the inquiry - as they won't be sent the Terms of Reference?

I'm presuming the school proposed an inquiry in order deal with the complaints, and bring this to a close before it damages the schools. I really don't understand why they seem to be consistently obstructing this process, as I'm sure they know what the consequences are if peoples complaints are not addressed.

I hope that Townend as chairman has the independence and basic common sense to insist his inquiry is going to be an effective and fair one, with wide participation.

Betts, any chance of indicating whether the Terms of reference will be made available before the inquiry starts?

Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:31 am
Location: London

Postby Snowman » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:01 am

This is quite an extraordinary move by the governors and one that is certainly going to provoke great concern amongst interested onlookers.

A deadline has once again been arranged which, as sugarloaf points out clearly, is entirely unworkable to bring about a fair and representative conclusion.

In my opinion the governors are still keen to keep the complaints, complainants, conclusions and all negative opinion concerning the schools and the SES as quiet and subdued as possible. This I can understand but I should warn them that failure to comply with decency, accuracy, transparency and honesty in all matters relating to this inquiry will result in far more dire consequences for the schools and the SES going forward.

There is no reason or possiblity for the inquiry to be ushered in and out quietly, unless of course there is something to hide or a partisan outcome is to be engineered.

Where the welfare of children is concerned, there is no place to hide and the truth will always emerge no matter how dense the smokescreen that has been created. We have witnessed over the past 9 months or so repeated attempts by the governors (and D Boddy who is not a governor but a former PR officer in the corridors of government) to suppress, control and manipulate their own inquiry. For what purpose other than to minimise the damage that these complaints might create. I understand their reasons for thinking in this way but suggest the strategic advice they are receiving is ill-judged.

I have submitted my intention to the inquiry to make a formal statement once I am happy that the TOR, scope and details of the process have been published. Today is the 10th day before the (latest - 4th, I believe) deadline for submissions and I am no closer to knowing the requisite details in order that I will take part. If these arrive on say, Monday 13th, I have a week to read, cogitate and produce my statement - that is assuming I am happy with all of the details. And of course being away on holiday from tomorrow for 12 days won't help things either.

My lengthy experience of the SES fortunately allows me to comprehend this apparent suicidal approach and I genuinely feel pity for the governors, the children, the staff, their families and all those seduced by the strange morals, ideals and practices of the SES. The underlying attitude of superior morality fixed under a verneer of normality has allowed a core of powerful and intelligent individuals to grasp control the organisation and its dependents. How, otherwise, could two people with no teaching qualifications become headteachers of the St James senior schools. In any normal school the governors would not even entertain that as a possibility, yet at St James it has happened.

This appropriately illustrates how St James schools are run by the SES (all governors are memebers) and that teaching ability and qualifications are less important than their relationship to the parent organisation, the SES. What you see as a non-SES parent is the "normailty" of a school that is slightly different in its approach and curriculum but you don't see the reality of the situation and the influence that a non-elected organisation has over the education of your child.

Is this normal? Is this right? Does this dual identity fill me with confidence in the proposed inquiry? Do I believe that no more children and young adults will be emotionally and psychologically harmed by St James? Do I want hundreds more children to suffer from the incompetence of an untrustworthy organisation that has a track record of bullying and manipulation?

Answers on a postcard to:

No to all of the above, Competition
St James School

cc: SES senior members - same address as above
cc: St James Governors - same address as above

Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests