The school totally ignored the following procedures, guidelines and Law Acts

(their own “Tallis Safeguarding Policy”, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”,

“Children’s Commissioner - Good practice” and DFE’s Keeping children safe in education-

Statutory guidance for schools and colleges”)

a) Procedures in ”Tallis Safeguarding Policy”:

Page1 lists guidelines and the Law Acts totally ignored by the school:

• ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ 2015 • ‘What to do if You are Worried a Child is Being Abused’ 2015 • ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ 2015 • Children and Families Act 2014

Page 11:

"Keep detailed, accurate, secure written records of concerns about children, even where

there is no need to refer the matter immediately."

"Ensure all safeguarding and child protection records are kept securely, separate from the

main pupil file, and in locked locations (This could be electronic secure storage).”

( The school did the totally opposite by breaking into my locker, stealing the list of my

passwords, by deleting, blocking and even amending my data that related to my concerns

about children)

Page 3:

“It is essential that every member of Tallis staff understands and follows the

procedure for reporting safeguarding concerns. This procedure is presented in the flow

diagram below. A record of all concerns should be emailed to the DSP Francesca Kamei”

The reporting of all Safeguarding concerns is a mandatory statutory duty.

Failure to understand or comply with the school’s agreed protocols and practice will be

1 of 11

treated very seriously and could lead to disciplinary action.”

Page 4 contains detailed flow diagram that clearly states that the feedback should be

provided to the referrer of health and safety/safeguarding concerns:

“Discuss concerns with line manager or senior colleague”

( I followed the above procedure to the letter. Despite that fact, nothing was done

about my concerns. Instead, I was sacked by the school who totally ignored their above

procedures.

Evidently, Mrs Smith and Mrs Wilson did face the “disciplinary action” because they left the

school only 2 days after my email to all members of staff that alerted them to the school’s

failure related to health and safety/safeguarding.

Interestingly, neither Mrs Kamei, Mr Brown and the Headteacher were “treated

very seriously” and faced “disciplinary action” for their failure “to understand or comply with

the school’s agreed protocols”.

Page 14:

“Feedback and reassure staff who have raised a child protection concern”;

“Be able to keep detailed, accurate, secure written records of referrals and/or concerns”

(The school repeatedly failed to adhere to its own above procedures by:

Sacking me, breaking into my locker, stealing my list of passwords, deleting my data related

to my serious concerns about health and safety/safeguarding of several pupils (EXHIBIT13),

harassed/intimidated me with their school’s Policeman to stop my complaints to external

organisations - EXHIBIT 24.

(EXHIBIT 27 and EXHIBIT 30 contain contradictory statements by the school and the

school’s Policeman in relation who provided my phone number to him),

blackmailed me (and my agency) with future jobs,

deliberately provided false information numerous times,..

2 of 11

The school did all the above in order to silence me and to destroy the evidence of their

serious failures.

There is a voluminous evidence in the "Tallis Safeguarding Policy" that points to the fact

that

I followed the reporting procedure to the letter, whilst the school totally ignored its own

procedure and went through the above extensive misconduct.

Both before and after my whistleblowing email my concerns were totally ignored by:

the school,LEA’s Children’s Services, Ofsted and Local Safeguarding Children Board

(LSCB).

All of them never asked me for any further information despite my numerous emails in which

I was raising my serious concerns about the school’s health and safety/safeguarding

failures.

Evidently, all the above has absolutely nothing with the “feedback” and “reassurance to the

member of staff who raised concerns”.

Page 23:

Flow diagram that shows the procedure in cases of “Tallis Children Missing Education

Procedures“ - “Regular truancy within the school day”.

(The school was repeatedly ignoring its above procedure and doing nothing in the case of

the Pupil R who was coming to the school without food and his diet plan and who was

jumping over the school fence every day around 1 p.m. thus leaving the

school unauthorised and unsupervised.)

Page 26:

(The school was repeatedly ignoring its above procedure and doing nothing in the case of

3 of 11

the Pupil R who was coming to the school without food and his diet plan and who was

jumping over the school fence every day around 1 p.m. thus leaving the

school unauthorised and unsupervised.)

10b) Guidelines: "Working Together to Safeguard Children” :

Page 17:

(Par 24) "Fears about sharing information cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the

need to promote the welfare and protect the safety of children."

(Mrs Smith claimed to the Headteacher and Mr Palmer that the information concerning

anorexic Pupil R was “confidential”, hence on that basis she was telling me nothing about

pupil’s needs.

She even boasted about it to her managers and reassured them that she was telling me -

nothing about pupil’s needs.

(page 3, EXHIBIT 43):

Mrs Smith boasts and reassures the Headteacher and Mr Palmer that “due to” her

“professionalism of not disclosing or discussing the confidential meetings” about pupils,

“why Mr Vakante can make these alarming statements”.

The safeguarder Mr Palmer (of Greenwich Children’s Services) simply rubber stamped

everything stated by both the Headteacher and Mrs Smith.

The clear evidence of his above misconduct is that he totally ignored by numerous emails

addressed personally to him, but also to the Children’s Services.

Also, both Mrs Smith, the school management and the Winchmore Tutors agency never

passed on my whistleblowing information to the external organisations.

Instead, it was I who has been “sharing the information” about this matter with the

4 of 11

external organisations for the past 14 months.

Page 23:

(Par 43) "Every assessment, including young carer, parent carer and non-parent carer

assessments, should draw together relevant information gathered from the child

and their family and from relevant professionals including teachers, early years

workers, health professionals, the police and adult social care."

(There was never any “assessment” of Pupil R that involved me as the teacher.

“Relevant information” from my whistleblowing email was never used in the “assessment”

of Pupil R.

Instead, it was amended, deleted or blocked from the disclosure.)

Page 26:

(Par 28) "Within one working day of a referral being received, a local authority social

worker should make a decision about the type of response that is required and

acknowledge receipt to the referrer."

(Despite my email of 21/3/2016 to the LEA’s Children’s Services (not mention my other

emails + letter to them), there was no acknowledgement of my referral, apart from Mr

Murphy’s email of 22/4/2016 that they “do not investigate complaints about schools”.

Evidently, Children’s Services failed to “acknowledge the receipt” of my referral “within

one working day”. Not to mention that they totally ignored my concerns.)

Page 26 (Par 60) and Page 28:

"The maximum timeframe for the assessment to conclude, such that it is possible to

reach a decision on next steps, should be no longer than 45 working days from the point

of referral."

5 of 11

(Despite my 6 emails to the school (including my whistleblowing email) and my emails to

the LEA’s Children’s Services (my first email to them of 21/3/2016) and my subsequent

emails + my letter, there was no “assessment” being done by either the school or

Children’s Services throughout the past 14 months.)

Pages 75 and 76:

(Par 17) clearly defines the meaning of “Seriously harmed”:

"Serious and/or likely long-term impairment of physical or mental health or

physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”.

(Special needs of Pupil R were being totally neglected and his condition was rapidly get-

ting worse. The school totally ignored the fact that the condition of pupil Pupil R fits the

above category.)

(Par 18)

As the consequence of all the above criteria, LEA’s Children’s Services and the Local

Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) should have commissioned the Serious Case

Review (SCR):

Page 78:

"LSCB for the area in which the child is normally resident should decide whether an

incident notified to them meets the criteria for an SCR…"

"LSCB should let Ofsted, DfE and the national panel of independent experts know their

decision within five working days of the Chair’s decision.”

(There was no decision, no coordination and no involvement of LSCB despite my

whistleblowing email and my other numerous emails to both the school and the LSCB.)

10c) Office of the Children ’ s Commissioner :

6 of 11

"Good Practice in Safeguarding and Child Protection in Secondary Schools"

Page 9: “Good Practice principles” are:

"Schools systems enable staff to get to know their students well"

(Mrs Smith was telling me nothing about the pupil’s needs.

She even boasted about that fact to her managers and reassured them that she was telling

me - nothing about pupil’s needs.

Page 3, EXHIBIT 43:

Mrs Smith boasts and reassures the Headteacher and Mr Palmer that “due to” her “profes-

sionalism of not disclosing or discussing the confidential meetings” about pupils, “why Mr

Vakante can make these alarming statements”.

The safeguarder Mr Palmer (of Greenwich Children’s Services) simply rubber stamped

everything stated by both the Headteacher and Mrs Smith.

The clear evidence of his above misconduct is that he totally ignored by numerous emails

addressed personally to him, but also to the Children’s Services.

Also, both Mrs Smith, the school management and the Winchmore Tutors agency never

passed on my whistleblowing information to the external organisations.

Instead, it was I who has been reporting this matter to the external organisations for the past

14 months.

"Safeguarding is a shared responsibility for all those working in the school and all staff

understand how their role contributes to the overall work of the school in supporting and

protecting its students."

(The school staff was totally ignoring my serious safeguarding concerns both before

and after my whistleblowing email. Considering all the above, the school staff did not

“understand how their role contributes to support and protection of their students.” )

7 of 11

"Schools and local authorities have established systems for regular on-going training and

professional development of all staff who have contact with young people”

(Both Mrs Smith, I and Mrs Wilson had no training/development related to our work with

challenging behaviour of pupils. There was no “regular on-going training and

professional development of all staff” at LSU.)

Page 15:

"identifying welfare concerns, and indicators of possible abuse or neglect, at an early stage

and referring these for further investigation to the appropriate organisation, normally local

authority children’s social care."

(The school failed to “identify” and address “abuse or neglect” of Pupil R.

They also did not “refer” it to the local authority - Children’s Services.

Those school’s failures were present both before and after my whistleblowing email.

Also, both Mrs Smith, the school management and the Winchmore Tutors agency never

passed on my whistleblowing information to the external organisations.

Instead, it was I who has been “referring” this matter to the external organisations for 14

months.)

“Contributing to the assessment of students’ needs and, where appropriate, to ongoing ac-

tion

to meet those needs"

(There was no “contribution to the assessment of needs” of Pupil R and there was no

“ongoing action to meet” his needs.)

Page 16:

8 of 11

"The impact of safeguarding arrangements on outcomes for pupils, including staying safe,

being healthy, making a positive contribution, enjoying and achieving, and developing skills

for economic wellbeing.”

( Pupils did not “stay safe” because of the curtain pole being present at LSU and the

temperature at LSU was constantly 28 degrees Celsius (82.4 Fahrenheit)

In order to force the Pupil R to take his jacket off, the staff used 2 heat blowers in the already

hot LSU environment,

Pupil R was jumping over the school fence every day around 1 p.m., he was anorexic/

emaciated, there were no learning activities or positive contribution he engaged in.

Hence, he was not developing any skills. Instead, the only activities he was engaging in were

colouring and playing computer games, he was unhappy and always “bored”,..)

Considering all the above, Pupil R was not “safe”,“healthy” , “making positive contribution”,

“enjoying” , “achieving” and “developing skills”:

"The effectiveness of health and safety policies and procedures, including conducting

necessary risk assessments as well as regular checks on equipment and premises.”

(There were no “necessary risk assessments” and no “regular checks on equipment and

premises” because curtain pole was present at LSU which pupils used as a weapon against

each other, constant temperature of 28 degrees Celsius at LSU, staff used

2 heat blowers on Pupil R in the already hot LSU environment, Pupil R was jumping over

the school fence every day around 1 p.m. thus leaving the school without authorisation and

no supervision,..

Considering all the above, “The effectiveness of health and safety policies and procedures”

was - non existent.)

"The effectiveness of arrangements to provide a safe environment and secure school site."

9 of 11

(There were no such “arrangements” and the school was repeatedly “ineffective in providing

safe environment and secure school site” because of the presence of the curtain pole and

the fact that Pupil R was jumping every day over the school fence.)

"How well the school meets the needs of pupils with medical conditions”

(School was ignoring anorexic/emaciated pupil’s both mental and physical health needs.

The school also repeatedly ignored the needs of both my medical needs pupils (and other

pupils) by sacking me despite the repeated requests from the parents of Pupil1 to reinstate

me.That had the detrimental effect on the progress and wellbeing of Pupil1 - EXHIBIT 13

and EXHIBIT 31.)

"How appropriately child welfare and child protection concerns are identified and responded

to by the school."

(Pupil R jumps over the school fence every day, hence leaves the school without

authorisation and no supervision. His mental and physical health was rapidly getting worse.

The school repeatedly failed to “identify” my above concerns and “respond” to them.

The school also repeatedly failed to inform relevant authorities about my concerns.)

"How effectively the school works with key agencies to safeguard and promote the welfare

of children."

(The school did not work “effectively” with LEA’s Children’s Services.

They both repeatedly ignored my concerns about school’s serious failures.

Both the school and the Children’s Services were only concerned how to cover-up this

matter and this can be seen from their internal correspondence - EXHIBIT 25.

Hence, Children’s Services falsely claimed that they do not investigate complaints related

to health and safety/safeguarding at the schools on 25/4/2016- EXHIBIT 26.

They also totally ignored (never responded to my subsequent email) in which I raised

10 of 11

my concerns again - EXHIBIT 28)

"How well the school prioritises safeguarding, and monitors and evaluates the

effectiveness of its policies and practices.”

(School does not care about “prioritising safeguarding, monitoring and evaluation” of its

policies.

Instead, they dismiss the whistleblower, blackmail him with future jobs, harass him,

then spread around negative references about him to other agencies and schools.

They also delete and block from disclosure the whistleblower’s evidence of their gross

misconduct.)

"The extent to which the school ensures that adults working with children are

appropriately recruited and vetted, and receive appropriate training, guidance, support

and supervision to undertake the effective safeguarding of pupils."

(There was no “training, guidance, support” and “supervision” of any member of LSU

staff).

10d) DFE’s Keeping children safe in education-Statutory guidance for schools and colleges

Page 16:

“..staff should be alert to changes in children’s behaviour which could indicate that they

may be in need of help or protection.”

( I was alerted to the “changes in behaviour” of Pupil R “which could indicate that he may be

in need of help or protection”. I reported those changes, but I was sacked instead of my

concerns being addressed.)

11 of 11