FRAMED! - part 5

10

Feedback from his peers at Off Centre, his counselling supervisors and management at both Off Centre and Sub19 was extremely positive. Colleagues commented on Brian’s breadth and depth of knowledge of counselling approaches, his ‘uncanny knack of understanding a person right from the word go’ and his life experiences, which made him an engaging and popular employee.

Against this background, he was approached by John Hilton, the newly-appointed Clinical Manager at Off Centre to apply for the post of Group Therapist.

Brian obtained a copy of the job application form via email using his Off Centre account. He did this for a reason: he wanted a record of his application saved on his work computer. It was saved at the following address: <c:\Documents and Settings\brian.pead\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK22\GW JD.doc>. This was saved on the Off Centre main server. His laptop at home was an extremely old, second-hand machine which had started to take a considerable while to load, a fact noted by friends David Cox, Geoffrey Bacon and his partner, Maya Walker.

This dying laptop was also to prove to be a significant piece in the ensuing drama that was soon to play out.

As is his usual custom, Brian studied the Job Description and the Person Specification for the post of Group Therapist – a post which he badly wanted.

The Job Description gave an overview of the post as “…Responsible for delivering group therapy and self-development groups to young people…”

Specific tasks included “…To design, plan and implement therapeutic and personal development groups to young people with complex needs…”

Under ‘Development of Service’, the Job Description required the postholder to “…build up a library of group work resources…” which Brian interpreted as conducting research into all areas of psychology and counselling, including child sexual abuse. He was also required to “…identify areas of development in conjunction with line management and take a lead in implementing these…”

Immediately following his success by taking Staff Training at Sub19, Brian interpreted this to mean that he could continue in his research into the subject area of child abuse and take a lead in ‘teaching’ his colleagues in this subject area.

Under ‘Provision of Training’, a requirement of the post was to “…produce articles to contribute to the development of the Off Centre website and to publicise the work where appropriate…”

Given that his case study into his work with ‘Jemima’, in which the marker had suggested that it was worthy of publication, Brian felt that he was adequately qualified to fulfil this criterion. He was keen to publish on the subject of child abuse.

    On page 3 of the 8-page job application form, Brian was required to provide details of examinations passed and professional qualifications in the customary reverse order.

The first entry, therefore, was “…2008. CPPD [www.cppd.co.uk] Advanced Diploma in Humanistic Integrative Counselling. Not graded…”

The second entry read “…2007. CPPD [www.cppd.co.uk] Diploma in Humanistic Integrative Counselling. Not graded…”

These truthful entries – which can easily be substantiated by Jenny Sandelson or Lynne Kaye at the Centre for Professional and Personal Development (CPPD) – were to become extremely significant in the ensuing months.

Once completed, the job application form was to be sent to Nicola Noone, the Administration Director at Off Centre. It was also read by John Hilton, the Clinical Director.

It is important to note at this point that the management at Off Centre were completely aware that Brian Pead was undertaking an Advanced Diploma course at the CPPD at the very same time in which he applied for the post of Group Therapist.

On page 5 of the 8-page job application form, Brian was required to demonstrate his “…Experience of working with a range of client groups including those who have been sexually abused, those who self-harm and those with disabilities…”

He replied as follows:

“…My work as a teacher of over 25 years has given me significant experience in working with such client groups. Furthermore, in working as a Special needs teacher, I gained insight into working with such students. A fortiori, my work as the Head Teacher of a Pupil Referral Unit in Lambeth brought me sharply into contact with students who had issues of sexual abuse, terminations, ectopic pregnancies, bereavement, self-harm, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and other issues.

I was also responsible for integrating the Borough’s out-of-school Refugees and Asylum seeker students into the PRU and liaised with interpreters and social services on a regular basis.

My work as a School Counsellor in Barnet also enabled me to work with these issues. My work as a Substance Misuse Counsellor at CDS in Wallington, Surrey also included work with clients with such issues, and my work at Off Centre also provides me with clients with similar issues…”

This is an important response by Brian Pead for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it was a requirement of the post that he had experience of working with clients who had been sexually abused.

Secondly, he informed Off Centre that he had been employed as a Head Teacher in Lambeth and that he had had recourse to counsel some of the vulnerable students. He describes in great details some of the issues he discussed with students – which included sexual abuse.

Thirdly, he informed Off Centre that he had had a spell as a counsellor in a school in Barnet. He was hiding nothing.

Fourthly, he informed Off Centre management (Nicola Noone and John Hilton) that he had clients at Off Centre with issues of sexual abuse.

It is inconceivable to those who know Brian Pead well that he would not be conducting research into the topic of child sexual abuse as part of his role at Off Centre in such circumstances. Added to this was his research into Faceparty, his awareness of the sexualised displays by Elizabeth McIntyre in the bedroom at 62 Days Lane and his ongoing reading and research at CPPD into psychosexual matters.

On 29 January 2008, Brian Pead had received his Enhanced Disclosure form (Disclosure number: 001186666451) from the Criminal Records Bureau. It had been requested by Sarah Baker of the East London and the City Mental Health Trust. The form clearly stated that the name of the Employer was Off Centre and the position applied for was a Substance Misuse Counsellor. All sections of the form came back with ‘None Recorded’ against Brian Pead.

Opposite is the page from Brian’s job application form which clearly shows that a requirement of the post of Group Therapist was to have a good understanding and experience of sexual abuse.

On 31 March 2008, he completed the job application form at Off Centre.

The management of Off Centre, therefore, had considerable information about Brian Pead at its disposal. In three months, the management had received excellent reports about Brian from colleagues and clients, it had increased his working week from 3 days to 4, and it had offered him the full-time post of Group Therapist. These actions would suggest that the management had some considerable faith in Brian’s abilities and in his character.

Yet, within a month, such faith was to swiftly evaporate once management had been paid a visit by the Metropolitan Police.        

11

At this point in the story, it would be sensible to pause and reflect on Brian Pead’s life.

By 1 April 2008, he had just completed and passed his Advanced Diploma in Humanistic Integrative Counselling at CPPD. He had received a Distinction for his Case Study of ‘Jemima’.

He had applied for the post of Group Therapist at Off Centre. He had delivered Staff Training to both Off Centre and Sub19 staff.

He was regularly attending self-improvement talks at Inner Space in London (sometimes twice a week) and he was also attending Psychodrama in London.

He was busy on the refurbishment of his house in Sidcup. Often working alone, and sometimes working with a builder friend, Geoffrey Bacon, or another friend, firefighter David Cox from Lee Green fire station in Kent, walls were knocked down, new walls built, a brand new kitchen fitted and a downstairs shower room and toilet added. It was a major undertaking. He was filling a skip practically every week. Throughout the period from September 2007 (when the females moved in at 62 Days Lane) to this present time, scaffolding clad the entire front of the house.

His grand-son, Joseph Birch, just approaching his second birthday, was becoming increasingly active and acquiring a good command of language for someone of his age. Brian continued to be actively involved in the lives of his grand-daughters, Emily and Lauren. He had, in fact, been actively involved in their lives on an almost weekly basis since their births.

He had recently commenced a relationship with Maya Walker, a 36-year-old Slovenian colleague at Off Centre who had an eleven-year-old son. Maya Walker happened to have a petite frame. This seemingly innocuous fact was to be used against Brian Pead at a later date.

He was continuing to monitor the Faceparty shenanigans, which were also being monitored by other responsible citizens and members of the website.

He had engaged in four conversations with the person alleging to be a 14-year-old female. The first contact was on 28 January 2008 in a Faceparty chatroom and then the dialogue moved to MSN.

Two further conversations occurred on 7 February and 25 February 2008.

In these conversations, he had provided three false mobile telephone numbers. He had never discussed meeting a 14-year-old for sex. He had never believed that the person was a 14-year-old. He had believed that he was dealing with an adult who was attempting to pass off as a teenager.

No contact had been made between Brian and the other party throughout March - hardly the action of someone interested in meeting someone for sex!

With full internet access at Off Centre and Sub19, he decided to save a little money to spend on his refurbishment by ceasing the BT internet connection. Again, this is hardly the action of someone interested in meeting people for sex on the internet as the police were later to claim.  

He was, as always, reading avidly. His life was full. Yet the angst in respect of his wrongful dismissal from Lambeth and the farcical Employment Tribunal hearings continued to eat at him. 

 12

He did not receive a response from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, so he wrote again on 30 April 2008:

“…I refer to my letter of 26 March 2008.

Regrettably, I have not received your reply to this letter and I am most concerned that my original letter has not been responded to, particularly with the time limit imposed upon one’s ability to appeal.

In that letter, I stated that I wished to bring an Appeal, and I asked for more information with regard to the Appeal process.

Please take this letter as my (second) formal notification of my wish to appeal…”

Unsurprisingly, given the determined but respectful tone of his second letter, he did not receive a reply. 

He then composed a third letter dated 8 May 2008 which he then decided to deliver personally to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which he did.

It would have been clear to the authorities that Brian felt strongly aggrieved that he had been dismissed by Lambeth Council and that he felt strongly that the Employment Tribunal hearing at the South London Employment Court in West Croydon had done him a great disservice.

He was not a man to be deterred and he wanted justice.

13

 Having received no response from the Employment Appeal Tribunal [EAT] to his letter of 30 April 2008, he therefore typed out a third letter dated 8 May 2008. He took a train from New Eltham station in Kent to Charing Cross and walked briskly along the Victoria Embankment on a mild day.

The letter read:

“…I refer to my previous letters.

Please accept this letter as my intention to appeal. I have applied for an Appeal within the 42 day time limit since the judgment was sent to me. I did not receive notification back from the EAT after my initial correspondence.

Please advise me of the next steps I have to take to execute this Appeal…”

It is clear that Brian was determined not to let the fiasco at Lambeth rest until he received justice. It is also clear that he had researched the limitation period open to him to launch an appeal, and it is clear that his resolve was such that he took matters into his own hands by travelling into London from the Sidcup suburbs in order to ensure that his Appeal was received.

He entered the building, handed in the letter and obtained a receipt for the letter, with a date, time and signature. This is his customary practice.

Since the debacle of 25 February 2008 in which he informed the Employment Tribunal judge – Mrs Anne Martin - of Maryn Murray’s grooming of female pupils, her bullying and her racism, he had been forced to write three letters to the EAT in order to obtain justice.

He had not received a reply. Someone, he and his friends felt, was orchestrating this unusual set of circumstances.

Someone did not want this Appeal to be heard.

That ‘someone’ could only have been linked to his unlawful dismissal from Lambeth Council. 

14

In April 2008, Brian was successful in his application for the post of Group Therapist at Off Centre and he was delighted, since he saw his long-term future as a group therapist and author on his therapeutic encounters with clients and his research into the issue of child sexual abuse and its lifelong impact on survivors.

His BT internet connection at home was ceased. His laptop had finally ‘died’ altogether. He had taken it to a computer repair shop in Welling High Street where he was told that it would cost more to repair than a new laptop.

Brian’s relationship with petite colleague Maya Walker was slowly progressing and on Sunday 5 May 2008, she visited Days Lane. They watched a film on television, both sitting on his bed.

Elizabeth McIntyre – the girl in the upstairs bedroom at 62 Days Lane – started to put on another of her ‘shows’, undressing and running her hands through her hair and over her breasts and hips.

Brian mentioned this strange occurrence to his lover and asked her to watch the dancing and stripping off and come to some conclusions about it from (a) her female perspective and (b) wearing her counsellor’s hat.

Maya Walker watched and saw McIntyre undressing and dancing rhythmically in her bedroom. She put forward the view that the young woman was a narcissist and that she knew she was being watched. Walker also suggested that McIntyre might be the victim of sexual abuse since she was so desperate to be seen and admired by men.

Brian asked her whether she thought McIntyre was dancing for the young men next door or for him. Looking at the angles, and the odd pattern with the curtains, Walker suggested that the dancing and the stripping must have been for him. Brian asked her to make a note of their conversation and the dancing in her diary.

On 7 May 2008, Brian was in agony – it felt that he had broken his big toe on his right foot.  Off Centre was having a ‘Clearout Day’ in which all of the offices and staff room and kitchen were cleared out of accumulated junk. Despite the agony, and wearing sandals because he could not bear to wear socks and shoes, he attended work.

It is important to note that on the evening of 7 May 2008, Brian was in no mood for anything other than to lie down and take the weight off his painful foot. His big toe had swollen considerably and was extremely sore and red.

On Thursday 8 May 2008, he went to Accident and Emergency at Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup where a diagnosis of gout was made by a nurse and added to his medical records at the Barnard Medical Centre. 

From the hospital, he caught a bus to Chislehurst, to meet with his friend Geoffrey Bacon.

With the pain-killers that he had been prescribed bringing some immediate relief, he alighted the bus just yards from his friend’s house.

Arriving at his friend’s house, the two men exchanged some banter about Brian having ‘an old man’s disease’.

Geoffrey Bacon is a self-employed builder who has been cleared by the Home Office to work in royal and governmental buildings, including police stations. His 80-year-old father, Roy, had also been a builder who had similarly been cleared by the Home Office. These were men of great integrity. Despite his advanced years, Roy Bacon was a sharp, intelligent man who had fought for his country and knew the ways of the world.

Geoffrey had a computer in his bedroom which he used for his building work. He used it to type out quotations, maintain records of customer accounts, complete his tax forms and run his business from it.

On Thursday 8 May 2008, Brian briefly went on to his MSN account and his Faceparty account to check emails and messages. There was nothing of note.

The two men continued to discuss the refurbishment of Brian’s house and how to overcome certain problems and Brian left around 10pm. He was working at Off Centre the following day in his role as Group Therapist.

On Thursday 15 May 2008, Brian again visited Geoffrey and Roy Bacon’s house and again he went on to his Faceparty and MSN accounts.

Once he had entered his Faceparty account, almost immediately he received an applet from the person purporting to be the 14-year-old girl.

‘She’ had not been in contact for some two months. ‘She’ tried to arrange a meeting, but Brian was having none of it and he typed: “…You are a fake! Fuck off!...”

As he typed out and spoke aloud those words and then immediately left Faceparty, Geoffrey Bacon, sitting on his bed next to the computer, asked him, “What was all that about, Bri?”

 Brian told his friend that he had encountered this person claiming to be a 14-year-old girl. He explained that he initially believed that it was a paedophile attempting to be seen as a teenager. He told Geoffrey that the Faceparty website had been a very good website but over the past 6-9 months, it had rapidly deteriorated. He told his friend that he believed that the police were using it as a website to peddle child pornography and to entrap innocent people.

He told his friend that he seen chatrooms with such names as TeenSluts4OldMen and Cash4Teens.

Brian then told his friend of some 18 years that he had decided never to go on to Faceparty or MSN again.

It is important to note that the ‘girl’ had once again contacted Brian and not the other way around. It is also important to note that he shared his concerns about the Faceparty website with his trusted friend, Geoffrey Bacon. And we must also note that the message from the ‘girl’ was stored on Geoffrey Bacon’s computer.

15

On 19 May, Brian celebrated his grand-son’s birthday – Joe was now 2 years old. Unfortunately, as in most families, there was an undercurrent of tension.

A few years before, after his mother’s death in Oregon, USA, in 1997, Brian made his daughter, Sorrel, aware that she had been named in his mother’s will as being a beneficiary of some £12,000.

His mother had left the money with conditions. Sorrel could not access the money until her 40^th birthday. Brian had no involvement in this decision – it had been his mother’s and hers alone.

His mother had also left the same sum of money and the same conditions to the sons of her dead son, Robert, who had died as the result of an accident on board the St. Kitts trawler.

Brian was made an Executor and a beneficiary of his mother’s will. He took the role of Executor of his mother’s will seriously. Now dead, she would be unable to ensure that her wishes were met, and thus relied on Brian to execute her will in accordance with her wishes.

Once he had informed his daughter of the existence of the will, the inheritance and the conditions, Sorrel Pead was unhappy and blamed her father for having imposed the fortieth birthday condition. Brian tried to explain that he had had no input into that decision, but his daughter would not listen. She badgered him to release the money, but Brian explained that he wanted to administer the will according to his mother’s express wishes.

After a period of three or four years, and with two daughters, Sorrel and her partner, Paul Birch, visited Brian’s house in Sidcup and asked for the money so that they could ‘buy a house’ – at the time they were living in a flat in Shooter’s Hill, southeast London.

Brian’s partner was Ann Armin, a former classroom assistant at Gravel Hill Primary School where they met, and Ann was present during this tense meeting.

It was put to Brian that if he did not ‘hand over the money’ then he would not see his grand-daughters again.

Neither he nor Ann could believe what they had just heard. Brian – as is his custom – asked them to repeat their demands. They did. He had not heard them incorrectly.

In the event, despite being a strong person, he gave in to their demands because he did not want to lose his grand-children from his life. He adored them and they adored him.

He worked hard at establishing positive relationships with his grand-daughters and helped to educate and nurture them. He repeated this pattern when Joe was born.

But on each occasion that one of his grand-children had a birthday, Brian would always be invited to attend after everyone else had gone home. He was left with curled sandwiches and dry pieces of cake. It was becoming apparent to him that his daughter and son-in-law saw him as an intruder into their family.

After the tense meeting in which Brian (and Ann) felt that he had been emotionally blackmailed, he sent a letter to his daughter, Sorrel, and to nephews Jason Pead (aka Jay Roberts) and Shaun Pead in which he informed them that he had set aside a Sunday and invited them over to inspect his mother’s will, read it and note the conditions she had set.

In 2001, their ages were 31 (Jay), 29 (Shaun) and 27 (Sorrel). None of them responded to the letter and none of them visited to inspect the will. It was not to be the first time that they would make judgments without examining the evidence.