A school in Kent. A summary of how schools deal with serious matters that they would rather walk away from.

1. A breach of the data protection act 1998 is regarded as a criminal act

2. A lie is when somebody makes a statement that is untrue

3. Abuse is when something is used to bad effect

Pending a civilised response from the Headteacher or anybody representing this particular school I have decided to withdraw the content which identifies the school and uses the schools own statements about a serious matter and what I have referred to as a malicious disclosure by one of the teachers from this page. It does however remain for Governors to view.

The complaint arose when a very private email was passed on by a member of staff - I have stated - contravening the Data Protection Act 1998 and in my opinion in a malicious manner. The staff member I originally approached responded to me in a manner that can only be described - in my opinion - as malicious.

When I raised this with the headmaster, she, the staff member, denied that the email had been passed on. The Headmaster confirmed to me that on investigating the IT system, there was no evidence that it had been passed on. My own proof was dismissed. (all communication is by email )

I approached the Information Commissioners office (ICO) who then requested a response from the school. Now the investigation of the same IT system - for the ICO - showed that in fact it had been passed on. I only found this out by making a disclosure request from the Information Commissioners office.

30 April 2018. (5) "xxxxxx when interviewed stated that she had not forwarded the email"

9th May 2018 (8) "It has been uncovered that the original email sent to xxxxxxx by the complainant time stamped 04:56 1 March 2016 was forwarded.... "

Why the orginal email was disclosed in the manner it was, I just do not know. I strongly believe it was malicious and cannot understand why the school is not taking this matter seriously, in particular when I have provided proof of its - in my view illegal - communication. Without doubt it was a breach of trust and the subsequent falsehood from a member of staff protecting herself when she knew she had done wrong.

I have had threatening letters from the schools solicitors demanding I keep this matter secret, even though the sequence of events that I have stated, has been confirmed through their own investigations. (though only after the Information Commissioners Office was involved). They have accussed me of lying (despite their subsequent investigation agreeing I was telling the truth) - they used the term falsehood. And being malicious (not sure where this comes in) . I have no problem identifying the school or person who did this, I would have thought the school would want to deal with this matter in a manner that addresses the concerns I have raised rather than simply making threats.

I am sorry that teachers in Kent might feel tainted, however if the response I have had is indicative of teh way that schools deal with rserious complaints, then things need to change.. I have no personal problem identifying the person, I just rather think it would make it very difficult for her to function in a school environment. If the headmaster asks, I will identify them immediately. The board of Governors are fully aware, equal shame on them for accepting bullying tactics to slince legitimate concerns..

What should have happened / what would I have done in the head's position? Well, I would have leant towards trusting my staff in a case of he said / she said. The moment they were found to be telling faleshoods, in such a serious matter that has caused such personal damage., Well I would immediately look at what actions to take to put things right. Most certainly not take the approach of issuing threats and what I found to be very abusive and totally incorrect statements through solicitors. That's just a cover up and smacks of being a bully.