It simply beggars belief
“When we started out in January, we joked that this was going to be a bit like ‘All The President’s Men’. Little did we realise how true that would be” (Member of the Investigation Team)
Our investigations team have uncovered yet more startling revelations regarding the action taken against the school in November 2018.
Firstly, the Care Inspectorate never saw the original staff letter sent to Bill Colley in September 2018 before accusing him and Angie of “failing to report a child protection concern”. In other words, they did not know what was written in that letter nor why both Angie and Bill made the correct decision that there was no allegation that could amount to a child protection concern. This is astonishing. It means that action was taken without any supporting evidence.
Secondly, the Care Inspectorate took enforcement action when zero evidence had been produced of any wrongdoing (OK - we know this already, but it still makes you want to ask, “What planet are the Care Inspectors on?”). We already know that their action was illegal and possibly criminal.
Thirdly, to this day, Bill and Angie have not seen the letter that the staff member sent anonymously to the Care Inspectorate and which differed significantly from the original in that two staff members were named and accused of what that staff member felt was inappropriate behaviour. Remember, that is what she herself had been found guilty of, that she had vowed, “to bring the school down”, and that her claims had already been shown to be untrue by the police.
Fourthly, the Care Inspectorate informed the press that a complaint had been upheld when there had been no investigation, no opportunity for senior managers to be told what they had been accused of, and no evidence produced. In fact, the school was never told that a complaint had been investigated (because the only investigation was conducted by the police, as detailed in previous posts - so who conducted another investigation, who did they interview, and how could this be done without interviewing Bill or Angie, or seeing the original letter?), nor that a conclusion had been reached.
Fifthly, the Care Inspectorate did not interview either Bill or Angie before taking the extreme enforcement action of issuing an improvement notice. So there was no chance to show the original letter nor the (correct) action that was taken in considering it to be a matter of working practice, and thus not reportable. They did not speak to anyone who had seen the letter. The improvement notice was illegal.
Sixthly, the Board of Governors had not seen the original letter or interviewed Bill Colley before they suspended him. In other words, he was suspended from duties not on the basis of the letter that he and Angie had read, but because the Care Inspectorate stated that there had been a failing based on a completely different letter which Bill had never seen (and could not therefore be accused of failing to report). So how could Bill be suspended? It makes absolutely no sense. The Board first had sight of the letter at the end of a disciplinary process when both Angie and Bill were cleared - after the Board had closed the school.
Finally (for now), Witherslack made a series of false allegations against the school despite never have seen the original letter. They withdrew from the takeover not due to the actions of school managers, but because of the actions of the Care Inspectorate and John Swinney.
So, none of the action taken against Bill and Angie, or the school, could have been based on the original letter but was instead based on a different letter which Bill and Angie nor any other member of the school has ever seen. Which means that there can have been no “failure to report”, that the suspension of the Head and disciplinary action against Angie was unjust, that the enforcement action taken by the Care Inspectorate was illegal, that the conditions imposed by John Swinney were entirely inappropriate, and that the closure of the school should never have taken place.
To this day, no evidence has been produced of any wrongdoing.
The school was destroyed by dishonesty, stupidity, malice, and corruption.
Someone must pay the price.