Monday 16 September 2013

THE TRUTH ABOUT BRIAN PEAD part 3

2
On 12 December 2006, Brian received a letter from Barry Gilhooly outlining the allegations made against him by Maryn Murray:
“…Dear Brian Pead
Disciplinary Investigation
I write further to our meeting on Friday 8th December 2006 and Claire Cobbold's letter dated 8th December in relation to your suspension from work at the Open Learning Centre for Vocational Studies.
Your suspension is pending an investigation into allegations of gross misconduct including the following:
1. Irregularities in not following procedures when students taking exams;
2. Inconsistency in the treatment of particular students;
3. Inappropriate language to a student;
4. Not adhering to Council Recruitment and Selection procedures;
5. Unfair treatment of staff members;
6. Causing distress to members of staff through inappropriate management style;
7. Bringing the Council into disrepute whilst attending a play.
These allegations will be investigated by a senior Lambeth officer and a Human Resources Officer. Further details will be sent to you by the beginning of next week…”
Despite promises with regard to his being sent details of the allegations ‘next week’, Brian did not receive such details until late January 2007. Perhaps the most intriguing allegation against him was that of “…bringing the Council into disrepute whilst attending a play…”
Brian had attended the play in May 2006, some seven months previously. No complaints had been made. Why should they have been? All he had done was to attend a play with his female companion. Nothing untoward had occurred, so how could he have brought the Council into disrepute?
It transpired that Murray had allegedly authored an 8-page document in which she made a number of spurious allegations against Brian Pead. These allegations included one that he had been masturbated by Ipek Yўlmaz whilst attending the play at the White Bear Theatre in May 2006 and that they had engaged in ‘…sexual acts…’ in the theatre. (These other alleged acts were never specified.)

Let us assume that this incident did, in fact, occur. It would raise a number of questions. Why weren’t the police called? Why did nobody report this to the Director of the play, or Theatre manager? Why was the Pub manager not informed, since the White Bear Theatre is actually housed in a back room of the White Bear public house? Why were Pead and Yўlmaz not arrested for ‘outraging public decency’?
Those would be the most urgent questions surrounding such an incident. However, a whole new set of questions arises internally within the OLCVS. Annabel Field, a member of Brian’s staff who acted in the play, never once made a complaint about such an incident. She had ample opportunity because just two weeks after appearing in the play she left London and moved to Bath to follow her dream of becoming a full-time actress. This would have provided her with an excellent opportunity to report the incident because she had moved out of London into relative obscurity since she did not leave a forwarding address.
Had, as Murray claimed, Field relayed the ‘masturbation incident’ to Murray the week following the Saturday night that Pead attended the play, then why did Murray not report the incident? She, too, had ample opportunity to inform Barry Gilhooly, Lambeth Human Resources or any number of consultants to Lambeth. She was, after all, particularly close to Paul Waters, a father of four daughters who dressed as a woman and called himself Ermina as he moved around Lambeth schools. Why did Murray wait some seven months before informing Lambeth of this alleged incident? And why did she wait until after she had herself been dismissed?
Both Brian Pead and Ipek Yўlmaz denied that the incident ever took place. Given that the theatre had no stage and that the actors moved around the floor, given that the audience on the night consisted of around twenty people and given that the lighting in the theatre is particularly strong, it is impossible that such an act – had it actually occurred - would not have been seen by others.
Yet no-one came forward to make a statement alleging that the incident had occurred, apart from Murray after she had been dismissed.
What was also particularly worrying was Murray’s mind-set when composing the report in which she claimed that Brian had engaged in ‘lengthy conversations with attractive vulnerable, female pupils’. Note how Murray described the female pupils as ‘attractive’ – the very same word used by Anya Hiley. What are the chances of an Afrikaans-speaking woman using the precise terminology of a native English-speaker?
It is a matter of public record that the pupils at the OLCVS were vulnerable and that, in the main, they came from chaotic homes. Examples of problems that Brian had to deal with included a female pupil whose mother had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act, a female pupil who had had two pregnancies (both terminated) by the age of 14, a female pupil whose father beat her, a male pupil who was unsure of his sexuality and an anorexic male pupil. Several pupils either had drink or drug problems themselves or came from homes where the parents had such problems.
It is inevitable, therefore, that a man aged 53, with considerable experience of life and a counsellor and a caring Head Teacher, would take it upon himself in that role to meet with pupils to discuss their home lives and how it impacted on their education. Head Teachers (both male and female) engage in conversations such as this every day.
Yet, in the 8-page report, Murray was sowing the seeds that when Brian Pead met these female pupils (she, like Hiley before her, had apparently not noted down all the conversations he had with male pupils) the conversations were somehow sordid. This allegation was made worse by Murray describing the female pupils as ‘very attractive’ or merely ‘attractive’ or, when she wished to make a different point, ‘unattractive’.
That Lambeth took this ‘report’ seriously is another matter at this stage.
Murray attempted to claim that Brian had favoured two ‘very attractive’ female pupils by allowing them to take an exam early. In both cases this was shown to be false with reference to the list of entrants produced not by Pead but by the Examination Boards themselves. In one case, the records demonstrated that one female pupil did not even sit one part of the Maths examination as Murray alleged she had and in which Murray claimed the ‘attractive’ female received ‘preferential treatment’ from the Head Teacher!
Other allegations included that Pead had mistreated his female staff. He had been managing people from the age of 18, some 35 years ago. In all of that time he had never encountered any investigations into his management or behaviour. He had been working in schools since 1982 when he entered what was then known as Avery Hill College, now part of the University of Greenwich, to train as a teacher of English. A requirement of the course was that students went on ‘teaching practice’ in various schools so that they could learn how to teach ‘at the chalk face’.
Thus, between 1982 and 2006 (some 24 years), there had been ample opportunity for similar allegations to have been made against Brian by pupils, parents or members of staff. No such allegations were ever made in almost a quarter of a century.
Yet Murray’s report – almost certainly not authored by her alone – was then sent to most of Brian Pead’s staff and to Anya Hiley who was not even a member of his staff, but who was close to Murray.
Murray’s report was sent to these people prior to them being interviewed by Cathy Twist, the interviewing officer and prior to Brian being provided with a copy.
By providing the staff with a copy of all of the allegations against Brian, Lambeth conducted a process which was flawed ab initio – from the beginning. No Local Authority – which owed a duty of care to its employees – could claim that the interviewing process was impartial once it had sent copies of a significantly biased report to staff prior to interviewing them.
Brian Pead was not interviewed in connection with the allegations against him until 19 April 2007. On 2 April 2007 he had been replaced by Ginni Bealing, who described herself in a Newsletter to parents as ‘the new Executive headteacher of the OLCVS’.
That Brian had been replaced as the Head Teacher whilst still only under suspension was confirmed in an OfSTED report dated 11 January 2008. The inspection was conducted by Greg Sorrell and his team. On page 3 of the 11 page report, Sorrell states: ‘...since April 2007, the centre has been led and managed by the executive headteacher [Ginni Bealing]...’
Why, then, did Lambeth Council replace Brian before he had even been interviewed regarding the allegations against him? Does this not suggest that the entire interview process was flawed and that it could only have one possible outcome – that of finding Brian Pead ‘guilty as charged’?
Why would the local authority put itself in a position where it was wide open for a claim by Brian for unfair or wrongful dismissal?
Between January and April 2007, the original seven allegations against him had grown to fifteen, some of which appeared as merely repetitious of previous allegations.
No teacher or Head Teacher is universally liked by his or her colleagues or his or her pupils and their parents. Brian Pead is a strong character with firm opinions on education, psychology and classroom management. He accepts that he made ‘enemies’ in almost a quarter of a century in teaching. A weak teacher struggling with classroom control might well observe Brian and feel animosity against him for having excellent classroom control. Using an analogy with football, this is a bit like a Championship striker observing Lionel Messi’s excellent skills in the penalty box and disliking the Argentine genius for being a better player. In all walks of life, a better practitioner is going to encounter jealousy or dislike from his or her less able colleagues.
Yet, in almost a quarter of a century, Brian Pead never had such allegations made against him, even by colleagues whom he knew not to be warm towards him for whatever reason.
He had always been interested in the psychology of education and also in counselling, and during his time as a secondary school teacher, he ‘counselled’ thousands of pupils without a single complaint being made against him. He had been on numerous school trips both at home and abroad, all of which would provide any number of opportunities for unlawful encounters with pupils had he had such a propensity. He had embarked upon private tutoring and, again, this presented no problems for him.

No comments:

Post a Comment