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 Bullying? | Academic Freedom? | Facts & Figures | Share Your Story | Links | Case Stories
Artressa Phunding Releases NEW Music
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
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 the 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.' The 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 the University reasonably expect the public to accept that these revealing internal e-mails were not, in fact, genuine?
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.
Government and opposition ministers respond on the floor of Parliament to the scandal as follows:- The UK Government Response
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
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.
August, 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 Artressamade in collaboration with
composer, Adrian Melia
It'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:
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 the 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 the 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 the University?
Were you bullied and/or unfairly dismissed?
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
