Welcome to the Website of Sir Peter Scott
Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University
Providing Leadership for Higher Education in the 21st Century
What is this site about?
This site tells a story through documentary evidence, images, music and video. It paints a picture for the reader/viewer to judge for him/herself, rather than putting forth a particular point of view about relevant events, by asking difficult and important questions to consider about what it means to work and study at Kingston University.
A brief summary of background facts follows:-
Dr Howard Fredrics began his employment as Senior Lecturer and Route Leader of Creative Music Technologies in September 2002. He moved with his wife, Lori from the United States, leaving a full-time permanent position to relocate his life to the UK.
In early 2003, he was approached by a colleague, Mike Searby, to sign a letter of grievance against his manager. Dr Fredrics decided that he did not want to become involved in such matters, as he was new in in post, still on probation, and simply did not wish to join in a mob action to address concerns about his manager. Rather, it was Dr Fredrics view that such matters are best handled on an individual basis through direct discussion with management to resolve individual concerns as they arise.
But Mr Searby did not take no for an answer. He continued to pressurize Dr Fredrics and even approached Dr Fredrics' wife, Lori to try to prevail upon her to convince Dr Fredrics to sign the letter of grievance. He also told Dr Fredrics that ALL other staff had signed the letter (a false statement) and that it would not be in his (Dr Fredrics) "best interests" to not sign the letter -- a clear threat, which Dr Fredrics understood as such. Shortly thereafter, Mr Searby and another colleague, Dr Frank Millward approached Mrs Fredrics to try to pressurize her further into getting Dr Fredrics to sign the grievance. They told Mrs Fredrics that Dr Fredrics was already becoming "marginalized" and that he would "find himself being sent back to the US" if he ended up on the "wrong side" of the battle against his manager.
What follows below are a series of links to pages containing documents, which show what happened to Dr Fredrics and his wife, Lori after Dr Fredrics made it clear that he would not engage in mobbing of his manager. Indeed, all Dr Fredrics wanted to do was to do his job, to concentrate on his teaching and research, to improve the quality of Kingston, to be helpful to his colleagues, and to live a normal and happy life. Alas, this was not to be.....
To whet the reader's appetite to read/listen on, the following recording of a conversation amongst UCU union rep., Chris Wills, Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery and Dr Fredrics documents Mr Wills request to Mrs Lanchbery that the University's appointed "independent" investigator look into allegations that Dr Fredrics was threatened by his colleagues with the loss of his job if he did not sign onto the letter of grievance against his manager. You'll note that Mrs Lanchbery agrees to formally instruct the investigator to perform such an investigation upon receipt of a written request from Mr Wills, who did precisely that. (n.b. the recording contains brief silences where the name of Dr Fredrics' manager is mentioned, in order to respect the privacy of that individual).
Mrs Lanchbery did NOT, however, include such instructions to the University's investigator, and he did NOT, therefore, investigate whether or not Dr Fredrics was threatened or otherwise pressurized by his colleagues, and whether or not this may have ultimately led to the targeting for elimination of Dr Fredrics by some of his colleagues through a collective grievance, one that was issued in much the same manner as had been done in order to eliminate Dr Fredrics' manager.
Does it seem to you that Dr Fredrics may have been bullied by his colleagues and later, by Mrs Lanchberry?
Do you think that the failure to conduct a FULL investigation, not only of allegations against Dr Fredrics, but also of charges of bullying by Dr Fredrics' colleagues means that the investigation was, from the outset, fatally flawed?
Read on to find out more.....
DAILY QUOTATIONS
"Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy
(source: http://www.morris.umn.edu/committees/difference/quotes.old)
NEW QUOTE DU JOUR
"In order to succeed in a claim under the 1997 [Protection from Harassment] Act, Dr Fredrics must also demonstrate that Kingston is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees on which he relies. In my opinion, he would be able to demonstrate this.
In my opinion, it is arguable that Kingston should have been able to foresee that stress would cause Dr Fredrics personal injury, on the basis that he informed them prior to his employment that he suffered from depression. Further, as from the time of receipt of the document at Tab 2 (the undated note from Wendy in Occupational Health), Kingston were on notice that Dr Fredrics was being caused stress from the working environment." - Adam Solomon, Barrister-at-Law
Video | Indictment | Threat | Questions | Update | Evidence | Corruption of Public Officials | 'Independent' Investigation? | Secret Meeting | Quality Assurance? | Plagiarism Scandal | Circle of Corruption | Cast of Characters | Workplace Stress? | Workplace Bullying? | Health & Safety? | Academic Freedom? | Facts & Figures | Share Your Story | Links | Case Stories
Artressa Phunding Releases NEW Music
Circle of Corruption (as featured on amazingtunes.com)
Fiona
(because we just want to know WHY?)
Scott Song (Reprise)
(dedicated to the brave souls who recorded the Kingston University National Student Survey Scandal)
Coming Soon:-
Fiona - The Video
Scott Song (Reprise) - The Video
Is VIOLENCE Tolerated
at Kingston University?
In February 2008, an incident involving several students occurred at the Penrhyn Road Campus of Kingston University. During this incident, (shown in the above CCTV footage) the students became violent and exchanged physical blows, resulting in facial injuries to at least one of the students.
Following this incident, which was immediately reported to the police and the University in the form of formal complaints, the University apparently failed (until at least July 2008) to take prudent action to ensure the safety of the involved parties, pending the outcome of an internal investigation and of a seperate criminal legal case. Indeed, during May 2008, the involved students sat their exams together and throughout this period, the University took no action to keep the students apart during the course of their normal daily activities.
In July 2008, the University finally (and quite rightly) wrote to one of the parties instructing her to sit her upcoming August 2008 exams in an alternate setting so that the parties would not have contact with one another.
In November 2008, one of the students involved was convicted of several counts of assault. This conviction, however, was overturned in March 2009 when the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop all of the charges instead of proceeding to contest the student's legal appeal of her convictions.
To date, despite the resolution of the criminal case, the University has not concluded its internal investigation, or at the very least, it has not informed the parties of the outcome of that investigation.
No students have thus far been expelled or suspended from their studies as a result of their conduct surrounding this apparently serious incident nor, during the course of the investigation, in order to ensure the health and safety of all concerned.
Do you think it was right for the University to allow the involved students to continue to interact through their normal University activities, given the seriousness of the allegations against them?
What does this suggest to you is the University's view towards on-campus violence?
Is student safety a priority for the University?
What do YOU think?
In a key ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), Dr Howard Fredrics won his 3(10) hearing, which grants him a full hearing of two important points of appeal in his ongoing Employment Tribunal case against Kingston University. 
The EAT Judge decided that there was a reasonable prospect of success for a finding of errors in law by the Employment Tribunal on the matters heard today. These matters go to the very heart of Dr Fredrics' claims of disability discrimination, which he has alleged in his case against the University.
Stay tuned for more news on the outcome of the EAT case as it becomes available.
Today's decision by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) marks an important victory for supporters of democratic rights of free speech. WIPO's panelist, Mr Alistair Payne found that Sir Peter Scott holds no monopoly over the use of his name as a trademark, and that Dr Fredrics was free to continue his entirely legitimate use of the domain name, sirpeterscott.com.
This decision, again, raises important questions:-
Why did the University/Peter Scott launch this complaint in the first instance, when surely they must have known it had no prospect of success?
Who should be responsible for paying back the taxpayers for the substantial legal costs in filing this frivolous and unfounded complaint?
What do YOU think?
UPDATE: 25 June 2009
HEFCE Finds
Kingston University's
Expenditure of Public Funds
Was Proper
In response to a public interest disclosure, HEFCE has now issued a decision upholding Kingston University's right to spend thousands of pounds of public money during a recession on launching an ill-fated legal claim with WIPO on behalf of its Vice-Chancellor.
To read HEFCE's response in its entirety, click HERE
Sadly, as a result of Kingston University's public press statements denying the authenticity of documentary evidence, which had been provided by Dr Howard Fredrics to the press and to HEFCE, Dr Fredrics found himself with no alternative than to issue defamation proceedings in the Surrey County Court against the University and it's Vice-Chancellor.
When a recent report by the British Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) upheld allegations of wrongdoing by Kingston staff members in connection with the pressurizing of an External Examiner, the veracity and authenticity of the evidence was clearly and irrefutably established. Yet, despite the publication of this compelling government-sponsored report, the University and Prof Scott failed to issue a public apology and retraction of its allegedly defamatory statements concerning Dr Fredrics' evidence.
Instead, both the University and Prof Scott have, thus far, maintained complete public silence, and have instead indicated (through their solicitors) that they intend to fully contest the Court action filed by Dr Fredrics.
Isn't it a shame that Prof Scott has chosen to reserve what must surely be a rather large sum of public money in order to defend this lawsuit instead of simply issuing a public apology to Dr Fredrics?
During a time of recession, when job cuts are being contemplated in the UK university sector, does it make you angry to know that YOUR taxes are being used to fund the defence of a lawsuit that would never have been filed, had the University and/or Prof Scott simply admitted that they were wrong to have denied the authenticity of Dr Fredrics' evidence?
What do YOU think?
CASE UPDATE:-
7 May 2009
Kingston University Applies for Strike Out of Defamation Case
On the grounds that the Civil Procedures Rules don't allow libel cases to be heard in County Court without agreement of both parties, Kingston's solicitors have asked the Court to strike out the case or to order it to be transfered to the High Court, where it is not feasable for an unrepresented Claimant to have his case heard. Moreover, since the claim is currently for a maximum amount of £3000, the High Court has no jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Rules to actually hear the case, since it only hears cases claiming at least £15,000.
The question remains, what will the County Court decide? Will they use their Judicial discretion to find a way to hear the case in County Court, or will they strike it out and award costs to the University?
Does it seem fair and in the interests of Justice that a claim that does not seek to obtain a huge monetary award, and instead is principally aimed at obtaining a public retraction of the allegedly defamatory statements might not ever be heard, simply because the Claimant is not greedy enough to ask for higher damages and/or because he has insufficient funds to hire a solicitor to represent him in the High Court?
How does it make you feel to know that the cost to the public for the University's legal fees are likely to be MUCH higher if the case goes to the High Court?
What do YOU think?
Following the emergence of various scandals at Kingston University, it was revealed by a reliable source that Prof Gail Cunningham, Dean of FASS has decided to 'retire' effective July 2009. But given her role in the National Student Survey Scandal and the External Examiner Scandal, as well as various other pecadillos exposed on this website, had her position simply become untenable?
Similarly, once Dr Barlow-Brown's role as the infamous 'voice' of the National Student Survey was revealed in the press, did it then become inevitable that she could no longer command the position of Field Leader of Psychology?
The University has yet to comment on the fact that the QAA has upheld the allegations against the University in relation to the External Examiner Scandal, but last word was that it was insisting that the evidence used by QAA to reach its findings was somehow inauthentic.
Could the University have finally decided that it could no longer ignore the public outcry for someone to 'go over a cliff' over these very public scandals surounding the act of bullying students and an external examiner? If so, will there be any others who will depart in the near future?
For further updates, stay tuned to this website......
In an apparent attempt to intimidate the publishers of legitimate and truthful cultural criticism and as well as important information in the public interest about workplace bullying, Kingston University's latest tactic is to file a complaint with WIPO to force the shut down of this site and to seize possession of its domain name, sirpeterscott.com on the grounds that it somehow infringes upon the legitimate interests of the University. But what, if any, interest does Kingston University actually have in obtaining this site's domain name from its current owner, who lawfully registered it more than two years ago?
How much money, drawn from the public purse, did Kingston University spend to launch this action, and how much are they prepared to spend to pursue it on behalf of Sir Peter Scott? Well, as a matter of fact, the application filing fee alone cost $1500.00 of taxpayer money. And the University has engaged the services of Mr Michael Cover, Partner and Head of Intellectual Property Disputes Team at Charles Russell Solicitors, a London top 50 firm. How much would you guess he charges per hour to pursue this complaint on behalf of the University? £250/hr? £350/hr? £450/hr? What do you think the total bill will be for the University if it ends up being taken to Court by the domain owner? Could it end up costing the University and YOU, the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds to take this complaint forward? How does that make you feel during a time of recession?
Under no circumstances will the site operators give way to this form of pressure, which runs counter to the US Supreme Court Decision in the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
which held that 2 Live Crew's obvious parody of Roy Orbison's song, Pretty Woman, constituted legitimate fair use that was in the public interest, even though unlike this site's domain owner, 2 Live Crew earned considerable income from their parody song.
All information concerning Kingston University and/or Sir Peter Scott contained on this site is drawn from documentary evidence (much of it from published press accounts and court documents) and/or reliable witness testimony. This site is intended to provoke free thought and discussion while raising awareness about the issues surrounding workplace bullying. Its content is protected speech and its use of the domain name, sirpeterscott.com is not intended to represent any association with or sponsorship by any persons living or dead, including but not limited to Kingston University itself.
Who IS the REAL Sir Peter Scott?
OR...... 
Just who IS Sir Peter Scott? This is an interesting and complex question. The answer depends upon WHICH Sir Peter Scott you are referring to.
Quiz du Jour
Sir Peter Scott is:
a. An Olympic yachtsman.
b. A popular television presenter.
c. A gliding champion.
d.
A painter of repute.
e. A naturalist.
f .
A skipper in the Americas Cup.
g. The son of a national hero.
h. The holder of the Distinguished Service Cross for gallantry.
i. The founding chairman of WWF.
j. The Vice Chancellor of Kingston University.
k. The former Chancellor of Birmingham University
l. The former Rector of Aberdeen University
m. All of the above.
n. None of the above.
Send your answers to blowthewhistle@sirpeterscott.com
Correct answers will be automatically entered into a drawing for an autographed photo of Artressa Phunding.
According to reliable sources, in approximately 2004, now retired Professor, Joe Bailey acted in a menacing and physically aggressive manner towards a staff member, raising his voice and pointing his finger between the eyes of the staff member. After this incident, Prof Bailey then engaged in a pattern of bullying, including but not limited to overmonitoring of work patterns. Following a finding by the University that the incidents in question did, indeed, occur as alleged, Prof Bailey was allowed to retire with full benefits instead of being subjected to disciplinary sanctions.
Interestingly, Prof Bailey is married to Prof Gail Cunningham, Dean of FASS.
Prof Cunningham is the same Dean who presided over Dr Howard Fredrics' disciplinary hearing and who took the decision to dismiss him for such alleged 'misconduct' offences as having reported quality of service issues (e.g surrounding the teaching of one of his colleagues) to appropriate managers.
Yet when The School of Music's MA Course Director, Mr Michael Searby and BMus Course Director, Ms Gloria Toplis took actions, condoned by then Acting Head of School, Dr Carol Gartrell, to presurise the School's External Examiner into changing her report to be less critical, the University failed to dismiss any of the aforementioned staff members, even though the allegations of wrongdoing were fully upheld by the UK Quality Assurance Agency.
Are there two different standards for staff conduct at Kingston -- one for non-disabled, non-whistleblowing administrators and their spouses and another for disabled/whistleblowing 'ordinary' staff members?
What do YOU think?
*=n.b. 7.3.09 - The above is a corrected account of events, which were previously misreported in error. The site operator offers its sincere apologies to the involved parties for this unintentional misreporting, which was based on third-party accounts believed at the time of the initial posting to be accurate. The corrections, however, do not constitute a renunciation by the site operator of the key material facts, which involve the University's decision to refrain from imposing significant disciplinary action against Prof Bailey after finding that he had, in fact, engaged in a pattern of improper conduct, as described above.
In reporting on another recent example of corruption at Kingston University, the Surrey Comet has obtained compelling evidence of underreporting of dropout figures by the University's management.
During his tenure at the University, Dr Howard Fredrics had been concerned with upholding academic standards and with honest reporting of the causes of student failures.
Does this latest report suggest that Dr Fredrics' concerns about the recasting of student failures in terms of course design problems, rather than in terms of deficits in management, infrastructure, and with the level of student preparation and accountability, may indeed have been well-founded?
By Martin George
Kingston University may forfeit £1m of funding, after failing to declare hundreds of students who failed to complete their courses - and the university warned other institutions may have even bigger problems.
Last year the university reported a 6.4 per cent non-completion rate, but an audit of 180 of the university’s 21,300 students revealed a higher figure of 8.6 per cent.
According to documents obtained by the Surrey Comet under the Freedom of Information Act, a later examination of 9,000 student records revealed that the true rate could be high as 14.5 per cent.
Third year computer science student Alfa Sow found it hard to believe. She said: “It sounds like a joke. To the outside it looks like bad management. I think that is bad at the time of the recession. There is so much you could do with that money.”
The miscounting is the latest embarrassment for the university, after a lecturer told students to cheat in a national survey last year, and novelist and research fellow Hanif Kureishi said he gave all his students a 71 per cent mark regardless of what they wrote.
According to a survey published in the January 2009 issue of the magazine, UC, Kingston University has scored near the bottom of the league tables in terms of the well being of its staff members. This result is based on a number of relevant critera that impact upon the levels of stress experienced by staff.
Kingston University has refused to acknowledge the relevance of evidence in connection with allegations of a threatened assault by one of its staff members against another staff member and has, therefore, refused to disclose this evidence in connection with the case of H Fredrics v Kingston University.
In this instance, the accused staff member who worked in the same faculty as Dr Fredrics and who was, nonetheless permitted to retire on full benefits instead of facing disciplinary sanctions, was also named in other documents disclosed by the University in connection with the case.
Here we have a case of a staff member who was allegedly given more favourable treatment than was Dr Fredrics, after being accused of actual threats of violence, and whose other statements were deemed to be perfectly relevant by the University in their disclosure of documents. And yet somehow, this potentially damaging evidence of a staff member getting away with an alleged threatened assault is not considered 'relevant' by the University's solicitors.
Will the University get away with covering up the facts surrounding this case? Or will the Tribunal force them to disclose the truth?
Can the University have its cake and eat it, as well?
Stay tuned for more details on this exciting development.....
Kingston's 'Quality Assurance' methods have once again proven themselves, as Music has reached a low water point in the recent Research Assessment Exercise, the results of which are used to determine government funding allocation for research.
To read more about it, click HERE
Once again, Kingston University has attempted to use strong-armed tactics to intimidate a key witness in the Employment Tribunal case of Howard Fredrics v Kingston University. This witness, a former employee of the University, had signed a compromise agreement containing a so called 'gag clause.' While such clauses are normally intended to prevent such individuals from making disparaging remarks about their former employer to the Press, they are NOTallowed, by law, to be used to obstruct witness testimony in legal cases, such as those before the Employment Tribunal.
Nonetheless, Kingston University has apparently decided to threaten this individual with legal action for simply testifying truthfully about what he knows about what goes on at the School of Music and throughout the University.
You are cordially invited to attend the Employment Tribunal hearing scheduled for 9:00 a.m. at London South Employment Tribunal, Montague Court, 101 London Road, West Croydon, CR0 2RF.
The first day of the hearing, 12 January is a 'Reading Day' only, where Tribunal members will read case documents. So the REAL action won't begin until 13 January.
Bring your friends and partners.
Be ready for some REAL surprises!
For those of you who can't wait or who can't make this event, click HERE to see some SNEAK PREVIEWS of Witness Statements.
The following is an excerpt from a threatening letter of 9 December 2008 from Charles Russell Solicitors, the University's lawyers:-
The above letter, received by post on 11 December, a day after the arbitrary deadline imposed by the University's solicitors, concerned the their false representation that Dr Fredrics had not disclosed his documents related to his case, when he had, indeed, done so. The University's solicitors then denied that the documents were contained on a set of discs provided to them.
In the above letter, the University's solicitors attempted to pressure Dr Fredrics agree to waste countless hours of his time needed to prepare his case by having to instead gather original copies of all of his documents, go to a local copy shop and stand around waiting all day whilst the solicitors arranged to take photocopies of tens of thousands of pages.
After all, a paper list of documents provided to the University by Dr Fredrics was, in fact, derived by simply listing the contents of what was put on the discs.
And besides, what would Dr Fredrics have had to gain by not providing the documents, when they were evidence that could help to prove his case?
Could it be that the University's solicitors were trying on the oldest trick in the book of claiming that the documents were missing in order to have Dr Fredrics' case struck out?
The following is an excerpt from a letter from Dr Fredrics' wife, written subsequently on his behalf while he was extremely ill:-
Several days later, Dr Fredrics arranged to send another copy of the disc containing the disclosure of documents. The University's solicitors are, for some strange reason, no longer claiming that the documents were missing from the disc.
Now what do you make of that?
And what of the University's practice of forcing bullied employees to sign compromise agreements in order to gag them from telling the truth, as they are, in fact, required to do under the law in court cases where they might have relevant evidence to offer?
Will they continue to silence the voices of truth or will courage and decency win out?
UCU today names and shames the universities with the worst reported levels of bullying, ahead of Friday's national Ban Bullying at Work Day.
The union said the deep-seated problem of bullying at work had to be tackled by universities and attacked organisations in the sector for failing to get to grips with the issue.
To read the complete article and survey results click HERE
(But we'll give you three guesses on which University's results were very near the top of the list)
The recent results of a study by the University and Colleges Union (UCU) reveals the fact that Kingston University scored more than twice the national average in terms of the level of bullying of staff, with 15.9% of staff reporting that they were either 'always' or 'often' subjected to bullying.
Injunction Issued
against
Kingston University
to force it to
STOP
Alleged Harassment of Disabled Student
Francois Greeff, a disabled post-graduate student at Kingston University was allegedly targeted for a campaign of harassment after he lodged complaints about his University-owned housing arrangements. The University, according to Mr Greeff's complaint, locked him out of his room, turned off water in the residence hall, and expelled him for allegedly breaching health and safety policies.
Why does the University seem to have problems with getting on the wrong side of the Law when it comes to acts of alleged harassment and intimidation?
Is there a management culture that condones and encourages such behavior?
Have you EVER heard of another UK university being slapped with an injunction to cease harassment of one of its students?
How about criminal charges being accepted by a Magistrates Court charging a top university official with witness intimidation?
Is this the NORM in Britain, or merely an aberration?
Dr Howard Fredrics, in an interview on the BBC Good Evening Wales programme, spoke about why he became a singing telegram performer after he was bullied out of his position at Kingston University.
To listen to the interview, click to listen directly to a downloaded excerpt.
Newsflash:
The BBC has reported on its website that Kingston University's Psychology Department, under the leadership of Fiona Barlow Brown and Fred Vallee-Tourangeau, has been removed from this year's League Tables because of the fraudulent manner in which it administered the National Student Survey.
To learn more about this latest development in the ongoing scandal at Kingston University and about the way in which Kingston has responded to the actions of these and other staff members, click here.
The Surrey Comet now reports that Kingston University never referred to the e-mails documenting attempts to pressurize an External Examiner into changing her critical report on the School of Music, nor the subsequent e-mails from Senior staff encouraging the appointment of more 'sympathetic' Examiners as 'bogus.' Kingston University did, however categorically deny the authenticity of the e-mails, which were allegedly sent to all full-time teaching staff in the School.
But given the multiplicity of recipients who have come forward to verify that the e-mails are genuine, and given that the BBC reported that the Examiner has acknowledged that she was pressurized to change her report and that she did, indeed comply, can Kingston University reasonably expect the public to accept that these revealing internal e-mails were not, in fact, genuine?
And how can they continue to deny the authenticity of the e-mails in light of the UK Quality Assurance Agency's findings upholding Dr Fredrics' allegations?
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education reporter
Should examiners judge against similar institutions or national standards?
An external examiner who judged that a university course had not reached the necessary standard was later contacted and persuaded to change her mind. An internal e-mail, forwarded by readers of the BBC News website, shows efforts at Kingston University to avoid "bad publicity". "We must avoid externals with these attitudes in future," says an e-mail.
The university says there was no pressure applied to the external examiner.
The external examiner told the BBC that "the kind of pressure that was applied was that it would have dire consequences for the music school if I didn't change the report".
'Devalue'
The e-mails surrounding a report into Kingston University's music degree were forwarded in the wake of academic whistleblowers claiming that degree standards were being lowered. The external examiner system, which brings in academics from other universities to provide an independent perspective, is under scrutiny from the higher education watchdog. A report from the Quality Assurance Agency warns that there can be "gaps between institutional ambitions... and the practices of staff in departments".
E-mails submitted to the BBC raise questions about the selection of external examiners and what happens to unflattering reports. An external examiner's report on a music degree course at Kingston University in 2004 identified weaknesses. The report observed that students "producing not just barely acceptable but sometimes unacceptable work are attaining passes at Honours level". The examiner warned that some work had been "overmarked" and that "it is surely important not to over-reward this work and thereby devalue the Degree".
'Damning'
On a crucial "yes" or "no" question about whether the standards were comparable with similar programmes in other UK institutions, the examiner answered "no". An e-mail to department staff highlights the response: "Can we ask her to amend that so it is less damning... We must avoid externals with these attitudes in future - we cannot afford this type of bad publicity."
A member of the university staff then contacted the external examiner - and following this conversation, the examiner changed their view.
To read the rest of this article link here.
To read the External Examiner's report, link here.
To read a letter from Peter Williams, Chief Executive of the UK Quality Assurance Agency to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills in which Mr Williams reports that Dr Fredrics' allegations surrounding the External Examiner scandal were upheld, click here.
Kingston University Caught RED-HANDED Faking the National Student Survey
Well, the story just keeps growing, AND GROWING
And yet, Kingston University continues to say this was an 'isolated incident.'
The University also claims to have launched an investigation into this matter.
Who will they hire to perform this investigation?
Will they hire Zafar Ali?
What do YOU think?
Source: The Times, May 14, 2008 pg. 11
Cick above to listen to the original recording of Kingston staff instructing students on how to fraudulently complete the National Student Survey
And what has become of Dr Fiona Barlow-Brown and Dr Fred Vallee-Tourangeau since this illustrious incident?
Has the University disciplined these staff members?
Is Dr Barlow-Brown on cozy terms with a member of the University's Board of Governors, and if so, is that why she's escaped without even a formal warning?
Since April 2007, this site has attracted a huge number of visitors from all over the world. Traffic has been growing steadily, as public attention becomes increasingly focused on the issue of bullying in higher education.
November, 2008 is well on its way to being the most trafficked month ever for the site. Help it to get there by spreading the word to all of your friends and colleagues.
The following is from a letter received from a current student at Kingston University. Names and other identifiers have been redacted at the request of the student, who fears retribution: -
"I would like to remain anonymous until at least after I graduate but bullying within
Kingston University is not just limited to academic staff. Students particularly postgraduate
students are bullied if they raise any grievance about the way that the university is run,
some are threatened with suspension from their course. A part time [DEPARTMENT
REDACTED] professor , [NAME REDACTED] I think his name is has made allegations to his
students about the bullying of staff/postgraduate students including to the point that
several of them left/dropped out.
The university would often use technicalities to suspend students, one student who had a
grievance about the university was suspended for a week because he forgot to update a
change in his term time address for example. There is an article in this issue of the River
that claims one student was bullied by her fellow students who when she made a formal
complaint was suspended from her course for a day. For lack of attendance (she wasn't
attending because she was getting bullied).
One way to test what I am saying is to make a FOI request for reasons why students have
been suspended from the university and watch them either delay or not honour it. It is
widespread.
The student union lacks enough independence from the university to deal with this issue.
The [NAME OF CLUB REDACTED] club was threatened with having its funding removed if it
didnt remove one student from it. This often encourages the clubs and societies to take
matters into their own hands and encourages student members of these clubs to
intimidate members of the club into leaving.
Bullying does not only occur among academic staff, It seems to be almost institutional. "
For further info on alleged bullying of students in connection with their responses to the National Student Survey, link to the following story published by the Kingston University Student Union, where you can read the University's response to the allegations:-
National Student Survey Scandal
Click HERE to read more about the National Student Survey and Kingston's methods for administering it.
Kingston loses tribunal
Times Higher Education Supplement
20 October 2000
by Phil Baty
"Kingston University dismissed senior lecturer Agi Oldfield unfairly, giving her an ultimatum to "resign or be sacked" after she made informal complaints of harassment against her line manager and complained about breaches of her contract, a tribunal has ruled.
Ms Oldfield, a principal lecturer at the school of human resources management, resigned from Kingston, but the South London tribunal ruled that she was constructively dismissed. The university "repudiated" her contract by giving her the ultimatum, said the tribunal chair, Mr I. S. Lamb, in his judgment.
In late 1997, Ms Oldfield complained orally to David Miles, dean of the business faculty, saying she felt harassed and bullied by her line manager, Christine Edwards, who had questioned Ms Oldfield's competence.
The tribunal did not adjudicate on the allegations and counter-allegations between Ms Oldfield and Professor Edwards, but found that the difficulties were handled badly, at the expense of Ms Oldfield's career.
The university repeatedly asked Ms Oldfield to withdraw her allegations, she was assigned a new line manager and removed as an MA course director. In June 1998, Ms Oldfield brought a formal grievance, saying she had been "summarily removed" as course director of an MA in breach of her contract.
"The considerations of the continued employment of Ms OldfieldI her role and job title, responsibilities and pursuit or withdrawal of the allegations against Professor Edwards, wereI overlapping with each other," said Mr Lamb in his written judgment.
During the grievance hearing Ms Oldfield was told by personnel director Elizabeth Lanchbery - criticised by the tribunal for being "underhand" - that if the issues could not be resolved, Ms Oldfield might have to be "sacked", Mr Lamb said. Ms Oldfield's grievance was rejected and rejected again at appeal by vice-chancellor Peter Scott.
In October 1998, Ms Oldfield was offered a job at Surrey University, despite an "unfavourable verbal reference from somebody at Kingston", the tribunal said. "By then, Ms Lanchbery had said to Ms Oldfield that it would be best if she accepted the position, because unless she resigned, she would be sacked," said the judgment.
Mr Lamb said: "Up to September (when the job at Surrey came up) Ms Oldfield was pursuing the internal grievance procedure. As she did so, there was a gradually deteriorating background state of affairs relating to her relationship with Christine Edwards, in particular the factor that Christine Edwards questioned her competence.
"(Ms Oldfield) was constantly told to withdraw her allegations, although she was not formally pursuing them... We accept the evidence that the final straw in the course of events was the statement by Ms Lanchbery that the applicant should resign or be sacked," he said.
The university believed "there had been a breakdown of relationships and that Ms Oldfield was behaving unreasonably", said Mr Lamb. "The university did not act reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason for dismissal.
"What (Ms Oldfield) had done was to pursue the grievance procedures... as she was entitled to do. She was willing to record that she was not pursuing her complaints against Christine Edwards. The university's responsibility in that situation was to find her alternative responsibilities commensurate with her position as a principal lecturer. Instead it adopted the 'take it or leave it' attitude...
"We accept that the effective cause of her resignation was the breach of contract by the (university) and the outright repudiation of her contract by the ultimatum."
The tribunal decided unanimously that Ms Oldfield's complaint of unfair dismissal was "well-founded".
A remedies hearing will be held next month. The university said it could not comment until the case was finished."
Here is an excerpt from the above decision in the case of Oldfield v Kingston University:-
A complete copy of the decision is available here.
Site Webmaster's Commentary:
As you read through this site, ask yourself whether history has a tendency to repeat itself?
Click HERE to view more examples drawn from a broad range of Employment Tribunal cases against Kingston University.
Coming Soon To A Theatre Near You:
Newsflash:
The following is a letter written to Mr Chris Ince, FOI officer and Head of Secretariat at Kingston University in response to the University's denial of a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. They have claimed that they do not hold records on out of court settlements between 1998-2007.
Dear Mr Ince,
I refer to the University's response of 30 January 2008 to my request for information under the FOI Act from the University's Freedom of Information Co-ordinator in which she states, "..information relating to the amounts spent on out of court financial settlements is not held. The University does not collate information of this nature."
In light of an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement, dated 14 October 2005, in which it is revealed that in 2002-2003, the University settled three cases for a total of £60,936, how is it that the University can rightly claim not to collate information of this nature? Where did these figures come from? Indeed it is evident to me that they must have been provided by the University in connection with the aforementioned article. Surely if the Times Higher Education Supplement obtained access to this information, the University must also have access to it.
Under these circumstances, I must insist that the University provide all of the requested information as set forth in my original requests, as its denials now appear to lack credibility.
I await your prompt response.
Thank you for your assistance.
n.b. In the interest of fairness, the following is from a reply of 6 March 2008 by Chris Ince:-
"In the University's response to your initial request the information
provided was that University does not collate this information. Therefore
it is not possible to provide the information requested. In a previous
e-mail you have drawn attention to the fact that the Times Higher
published information that in 2002-2003, the University settled three
cases for a total of £60,936. It is possible that they obtained this from
the University at the time but it is not something that is currently
recorded."
Several questions remain:-
WHAT happened to the information?
Was it merely discarded?
And
what responsibility does the University have to the public interest to maintain important financial records of this sort?
What responsibility, indeed?
Newsflash:
In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Employment Tribunal dismissed RB's case against Kingston University. By failing to take note of key aspects of Dr B's evidence that proved that she was singled out for disciplinary action, the Tribunal, in its stated reasons for finding against Dr. B, whitewashed yet another case of targetting for elimination of one of Kingston University's employees, who had filed complaints regarding harassment/bullying.
The following document, entered into evidence in this case, was sent from Sir Peter Scott to then Personnel Director, Liz Scholey (Lanchbery) and Dean, Reg Davis following a grievance appeal hearing before the Board of Governors at Kingston University:-
A number of questions remain about the Employment Tribunal's handling of evidence in this case, which suggest that it may have erred in its ruling:-
• Why was ‘244’ (the page number of this document in the bundle of documented evidence) the only information from this document that appeared in the 11.02.08 judgment of the Employment Tribunal? Weren’t its contents relevant, worthy of consideration or mention?
• Why didn’t the Governors of Kingston University, who heard Dr B’s grievance for harassment by her line managers Professors R Davis and J Morris, include their criticisms in their findings, instead chosing to communicate them privately to Sir Peter Scott?
• If it was not for the fact that the managers involved just had a ‘narrow escape’ from being found guilty of harassment, what precipitous action had been planned against Dr B that Sir Peter Scott decided to postpone for 6 months? Could it be Dr B’s dismissal that the Personnel Director, Mrs Lanchbery, had advocated in her earlier email to the Dean, Professor R Davis?
• What was the 'further action' Sir Peter Scott proposed to take after the passage of 6 months? Did that have anything to do with the action that led to Dr B’s dismissal?
What do YOU think?
On 7 January 2007, Sir Peter Scott testified before the London South Employment Tribunal in the case of B v Kingston University. Dr B, a former lecturer at the University, has sued for unfair dismissal and victimization, which, as alleged in her claim, the Vice Chancellor did nothing to prevent.
Sir Peter suggested in his testimony that it was perfectly reasonable for him to have placed Dean Reg Davis in the position of presiding over Dr B's disciplinary hearing, despite the fact that, contrary to University policy, he had for some time been involved in her case, having expressed clear irritation at being named as defendant in her bullying and victimization grievance and Tribunal case, which would have made it highly likely that he could not act in a fair and impartial manner in her disciplinary hearing.
In light of the significant potential for retribution on the part of Prof Davis towards Dr B, do YOU think it would have been MORE REASONABLE for Sir Peter to have appointed an independent and impartial disciplinary chairperson to preside, for example a dean of another faculty?
Is it surprising to you that Prof Davis did, indeed, find against Dr B and ordered her dismissal?
Artressa Phunding believes in celebrating the Christmas spirit
Here is Artressa's latest recording of a performance of the traditional carol,
which is dedicated to bullying managers around the world:-
(Lyrics courtesy of Lin Johnson)
THE TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMASOn the twelfth day of Christmas my bully manager gave to me:
Twelve calls a-criticising
Eleven taunts a-teasing
Ten bullies back-biting
Nine notes a-nit-picking
Eight ideas ignoring
Seven molehills mounting
Six goal-posts going
Five mock h-e-a-r-i-n- g-s
Four bullying rages
Three lying records
Two misconduct meetingsAnd a dismissal disciplinary
Here is a recent music video by Artressa Phunding, which is dedicated to the principles set forth by Thomas Jefferson:
Help Artress Phunding Celebrate Over 1000 YouTube Viewings of Her Video, "Scott Song"
Click above to watch the video so that Artressa can reach her next milestone: 2000 viewings!
Artressa Phunding Collaborates
Here's yet another anti-bullying music video by ArtressaIt's Finally Here!
NEW Music Video
by Artressa Phunding!
Please Tell Us...
WHO is That Man?
Click HERE to download previous music and video releases
by Artressa Phunding
Coming Soon:
Comische Opera Geneva Presents
Salomé
Starring
Artressa Phunding
And Introducing
Pietro Scotto
(whose identifiable bass-baritone voice we have all come to know and love from his famous recordings)
'Wehr hat meinem Bilt genommen?'
Coming Soon:
Loria Tosca: The Opera
Starring
Chiquita Rivera
(Tue, Thu, Sat)
Carmen Banana
(Wed, Fri, Sun mat)
Click HERE to read the synopsis
On 8 November, 2007, Kingston University's barrister succesfully lodged a formal objection to the presentation of key relevant witness testimony during an Employment Tribunal hearing in a case brought by a former staff member alleging victimization.
Like the claimant, this witness also allegedly suffered victimization at the hands of the University, which involved, among others, the now former Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery (aka Liz Scholey), and was prepared to bring forth a formal acknowledgement by the University of improper treatment.
The claimant had NO OTHER WITNESSES to be brought forward during a scheduled eight day hearing, while Kingston University is bringing Prof Peter Scott, Liz Lanchbery (Scholey), and a number of other staff members to defend against various allegations.
Do YOU think it is fair for Kingston University to be able to parade a large number of witnesses before the Tribunal while denying the right of the claimant to bring in one single witness to read a short one page statement detailing experiences of being victimized after bringing forward a grievance?
WHY is Kingston University afraid of having this witness testify?
Could it be that they KNOW that the witness would help to PROVE that the University engaged in victimization of its staff members on a regular basis?
How many MORE times will the University try to silence this same witness when they are asked to come forward in other cases against the University, and in which their testimony would be extremely compelling?
What do YOU think?
To learn more about the SHOCKING revelations of involvement by HR and Dean of FASS, Prof Gail Cunningham in the unlawful filing of a collective grievance and the conflicting statement by Zafar Ali regarding the willingness of Dr Fredrics' colleagues to engage in mediation with him, click HERE.
DATELINE - September 4, 2007:
Kingston University Threatens Website Host
Dr Chris Ince
The letter suggests that Kingston University would take legal action unless the host takes down the site.
What has Kingston University got to be afraid of?
Could it be that it is afraid that the world will find out the truth about its actions?
What sort of University tries to silence free speech with threats?
DATELINE - August 31st 2007:
Kingston University Inducted Into
The Divestors of People 'Hall of Shame'
Donald Beaton, University Secretary of Kingston University
is Charged with Witness Intimidation
The following is a copy of a summons issued by Richmond Magistrates' Court on April 20, 2007:-
Several important questions arise from this serious criminal indictment:
1. If the allegations are correct, who, if anyone, ordered Mr Beaton to commit such acts? Would he have REALLY decided on his own to write such letters?
2. If the allegations are correct, what was so important about the evidence that would have motivated someone to go to such lengths to retrieve ALL existing copies?
3. Given the very serious nature of the criminal charges against Mr Beaton, what action, if any, has Kingston University taken with respect to his duties, pending the outcome of the case before the Court?
4. Does the fact that the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 does not explicitly reference Employment Tribunal proceedings among the list of "relevant proceedings" for the purposes of the Act mean that intimidation of a witness in an Employment Tribunal proceeding is perfectly LEGAL?
Click HERE to VIEW a petition to Parliament and the CPS to revise the Act to explicitly refer to Employment Tribunal proceedings - SIGNATURES NEEDED!!
UPDATE: Following a hearing before the Court on 22 June 2007 and a decision by the Richmond CPS to take over the case so that they could then DROP it, the charges have been, FOR NOW, dismissed.
But is this matter REALLY going to end with this decision by the CPS?
REMEMBER, no Court of Law has rendered a final decision on whether or not an Employment Tribunal constitute a "relevant proceeding" for the purpose of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
And Donald Beaton has NOT been found to be innocent of the charges by any Court of Law.
Could the Clerk of the Court AND a panel of THREE Magistrates all have been wrong to have handed down a summons, which REQUIRES that there be a prima facie case to answer?
STAY TUNED to this website to learn what will happen NEXT.
UPDATE: 2 Nov 2007:-
Justice Ministry rules that Witness Intimidation is NOT legal when it involves parties to an Employment Tribunal proceeding
The following is an excerpt from a statement by Vera Baird MP QC of the Solicitor General's Office regarding the instances where witness intimidation IS a criminal offence:-
The question remains, what will the Courts do with Mr Donald Beaton and Sir Peter Scott?
Will the Courts find that they did, indeed, commit criminal acts?
Or will they be found innocent of allegations of witness intimidation?
The Employment Appeals Tribunal has held, in Force One Utilities v Hatfield (2008), that it is appropriate to strike out an employer's ET3 Response when the employer threatens the Claimant. According to the EAT, once intimidation of this kind has occurred, no fair trial is possible. The only fair remedy is removal of the employer from the entire Tribunal process.
Similarly in Nicholls v Corin Tech Ltd, the EAT held that the Respondent employer threatened a Claimant, using unpleasant and intimidating language, outside the lifts at the Southampton tribunal. The EAT held that conversations outside the lift did not form any part of the judicial proceedings and were not, therefore, immune from the legal ramifications of acts of intimidation. The EAT also held that conduct intended to deter a Claimant from enforcing his statutory employment rights would be sufficiently closely connected with the employment relationship to amount to a (potentially) unlawful act by an employer within the meaning of the discrimination legislation.
HERE is some of the evidence that forms the basis of the charges against Mr Beaton.
Why not decide for yourself whether or not you think that what Mr Beaton wrote is proper? Are these the sort of letters that ought to be written by public officials to former employees who have LEGALLY and LAWFULLY obtained evidence of wrongdoing?
And what of this evidence of wrongdoing?
Shall we have a few examples?
And HERE is some of the evidence that forms the basis of allegations that Peter Scott was aware of and/or ordered his subordinate, Mr Beaton to write the series of intimidating and threatening letters to Mrs Fredrics, Dr Fredrics and their solicitor.
And what of the basis for Dr Fredrics' grievance appeal? What led him to conclude that the process of developing and investigating the allegations against him was unfair?
Click HERE to learn more about how allegations were developed and put forth. Then decide for yourself whether or not there was undue pressure placed upon staff to invent complaints against Dr Fredrics.
Click HERE to learn about a secret meeting held on 25 May 2006 between Dean of FASS, Prof Gail Cunningham, Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery (aka Liz Scholey) and Personnel Officer, Jas Lally just over a month prior to Dr Fredrics' disciplinary hearing, which led to his dismissal.
Click HERE to learn more about Zafar Ali, the barrister, whom Kingston University appointed to investigate allegations against Dr Fredrics.
Click HERE to see evidence of possibly anti-Semitic actions by certain Kingston University officials and their associates. Then decide for yourself whether or not the allegations against Dr Fredrics (and the way his case was subsequently handled) were motivated by anti-Semitism.
Click HERE to learn more about Dr David Osbon, Head of Performance at the now former School of Music at Kingston University, and decide for yourself whether or not Kingston University and/or its management staff engage in discriminatory practices against members of minority races and religious groups.
Click HERE to learn more about how Kingston University staff help to maintain access to high quality education for all.
Click HERE to learn more about how Kingston University staff view students, as well as how plagiarism is dealt with.
Click HERE to VIEW a petition to the Prime Minister to outlaw the easily abused SOSR (some other substantial reason) basis for dismissal of British workers.
Here is an interview with Dr Howard Fredrics, author of the petition to outlaw SOSR:-
Here is a blurb on the legal limitations of using SOSR as the basis for dismissal:-
DISCLAIMER: ALL PERSONS ARE PRESUMED UNDER THE LAW AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS WEBSITE TO BE INNOCENT OF ALL CRIMES UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A COURT OF LAW
This site is dedicated to the memory of Aaron Fruchtman, whose approach to dealing with corrupt and powerful forces, has been the inspiration for its development.
URGENT CALL FOR ASSISTANCE - Tell the truth about life at Kingston
Have you worked for Kingston University?
Have you been mistreated by Kingston University?
Were you bullied and/or unfairly dismissed by Kingston University?
Or were you a staff member who participated in bullying or corruption at Kingston University?
If so, it's NOT too late to seek redemption by coming forward NOW and telling the truth about WHY you may have done what you did and WHO may have told you that you HAD to do this to save your own job.
We want to know YOUR story.
Tell us about what happened to you.
We promise to keep it STRICTLY confidential.
Send e-mail to: blowthewhistle@sirpeterscott.com
Site maintained by L. J. Fredrics