10
Feedback from his peers at Off Centre, his counselling supervisors
and management at both Off Centre and Sub19 was extremely positive. Colleagues commented
on Brian’s breadth and depth of knowledge of counselling approaches, his
‘uncanny knack of understanding a person right from the word go’ and his life
experiences, which made him an engaging and popular employee.
Against this background, he was approached by John Hilton, the newly-appointed Clinical
Manager at Off Centre to apply for the post of Group Therapist.
Brian obtained a copy of the job application form via email using his
Off Centre account. He did this for a reason: he wanted a
record of his application saved on his work computer. It was saved at the
following address: <c:\Documents and Settings\brian.pead\Local
Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK22\GW JD.doc>. This was saved on the
Off Centre main server. His laptop at home was an
extremely old, second-hand machine which had started to take a considerable
while to load, a fact noted by friends David Cox, Geoffrey Bacon and his lover, Maya Walker.
This dying laptop was also to prove to be a significant piece in the
ensuing drama that was soon to play out.
As is his usual custom, Brian studied the Job Description and the
Person Specification for the post of Group Therapist – a post which he badly wanted.
The Job Description gave an overview of the post as “…Responsible for delivering group therapy and
self-development groups to young people…”
Specific tasks included “…To
design, plan and implement therapeutic and personal development groups to young
people with complex needs…”
Under ‘Development of Service’, the Job Description required the
postholder to “…build up a library of
group work resources…” which Brian interpreted as conducting research into
all areas of psychology and counselling, including child sexual abuse. He was
also required to “…identify areas of
development in conjunction with line management and take a lead in implementing
these…”
Immediately following his success by taking Staff Training at Sub19, Brian interpreted this to
mean that he could continue in his research into the subject area of child
abuse and take a lead in ‘teaching’ his colleagues in this subject area.
Under ‘Provision of Training’, a requirement of the post was to “…produce articles to contribute to the
development of the Off Centre website and to publicise the work where
appropriate…”
Given that his case study into his work with ‘Jemima’, in which the marker had
suggested that it was worthy of publication, Brian felt that he was adequately
qualified to fulfil this criterion. He was keen to publish on the subject of
child abuse.
On page
3 of the 8-page job application form, Brian was required to provide details of
examinations passed and professional qualifications in the customary reverse
order.
The first entry, therefore, was “…2008.
CPPD [www.cppd.co.uk] Advanced Diploma in
Humanistic Integrative Counselling. Not graded…”
The second entry read “…2007.
CPPD [www.cppd.co.uk] Diploma in Humanistic
Integrative Counselling. Not graded…”
These truthful entries – which can easily be substantiated by Jenny
Sandelson or Lynne Kaye at the Centre for Professional and Personal
Development (CPPD) – were to become extremely
significant in the ensuing months.
Once completed, the job application form was to be sent to Nicola
Noone, the Administration Director at Off Centre. It was also read by John
Hilton, the Clinical Director.
It is important to note at this point that the management at Off Centre were completely aware that Brian Pead was
undertaking an Advanced Diploma course at the CPPD at the very same time in which he applied for
the post of Group Therapist.
On page 5 of the 8-page job application form, Brian was required to
demonstrate his “…Experience of working
with a range of client groups including those who have been sexually abused,
those who self-harm and those with disabilities…”
He replied as follows:
“…My work as a teacher of over 25 years has
given me significant experience in working with such client groups.
Furthermore, in working as a Special needs teacher, I gained insight into
working with such students. A fortiori, my work as the Head Teacher of a Pupil
Referral Unit in Lambeth brought me sharply into contact with students who had
issues of sexual abuse, terminations, ectopic pregnancies, bereavement,
self-harm, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and other issues.
I was also responsible for integrating the
Borough’s out-of-school Refugees and Asylum seeker students into the PRU and
liaised with interpreters and social services on a regular basis.
My work as a School Counsellor in Barnet
also enabled me to work with these issues. My work as a Substance Misuse
Counsellor at CDS in Wallington, Surrey also included work with clients with
such issues, and my work at Off Centre also
provides me with clients with similar issues…”
This is an important response by Brian Pead for a number of reasons.
Firstly, it was a requirement of the post that he had experience of
working with clients who had been sexually abused.
Secondly, he informed Off Centre that he had been employed as a Head Teacher in
Lambeth and that he had had recourse to counsel some of the vulnerable
students. He describes in great details some of the issues he discussed with
students – which included sexual abuse.
Thirdly, he informed Off Centre that he had had a spell as a counsellor in a
school in Barnet. He was hiding nothing.
Fourthly, he informed Off Centre management (Nicola Noone and John Hilton) that he had clients at Off
Centre with issues of sexual abuse.
It is inconceivable to those who know Brian Pead well that he would
not be conducting research into the topic of child sexual abuse as part of his
role at Off Centre in such circumstances. Added to this was his
research into Faceparty, his awareness of the
sexualised displays by Elizabeth McIntyre in the bedroom at 62 Days Lane and his ongoing
reading and research at CPPD into psychosexual matters.
On 29 January 2008, Brian Pead had received his Enhanced Disclosure form (Disclosure number: 001186666451) from
the Criminal Records Bureau. It had been requested by
Sarah Baker of the East London and the City Mental Health
Trust. The form clearly stated that the name of the Employer was Off Centre and the position applied for was a Substance
Misuse Counsellor. All sections of the form came back with ‘None Recorded’
against Brian Pead.
Opposite is the page from Brian’s job application form which clearly
shows that a requirement of the post of Group Therapist was to have a good
understanding and experience of sexual abuse.
On 31 March 2008, he completed the job application form at Off Centre.
The management of Off Centre, therefore, had considerable
information about Brian Pead at its disposal. In three months, the management
had received excellent reports about Brian from colleagues and clients, it had
increased his working week from 3 days to 4, and it had offered him the
full-time post of Group Therapist. These actions would suggest
that the management had some considerable faith in Brian’s abilities and in his
character.
Yet, within a month, such faith was to swiftly evaporate once
management had been paid a visit by the Metropolitan Police.
11
At this point in the story, it would be sensible to pause and reflect
on Brian Pead’s life.
By 1 April 2008, he had just completed and passed his Advanced Diploma
in Humanistic Integrative Counselling at CPPD. He had received a
Distinction for his Case Study of ‘Jemima’.
He had applied for the post of Group Therapist at Off Centre. He had delivered Staff
Training to both Off Centre and Sub19 staff.
He was regularly attending self-improvement talks at Inner Space in London (sometimes twice a week) and he was
also attending Psychodrama in London.
He was busy on the refurbishment of his house in Sidcup. Often working
alone, and sometimes working with a builder friend, Geoffrey Bacon, or another friend, firefighter David Cox from Lee Green fire station in Kent, walls
were knocked down, new walls built, a brand new kitchen fitted and a downstairs
shower room and toilet added. It was a major undertaking. He was filling a skip
practically every week. Throughout the period from September 2007 (when the
females moved in at 62 Days Lane) to this present time, scaffolding clad the
entire front of the house.
His grand-son, Joseph Birch, just approaching his second
birthday, was becoming increasingly active and acquiring a good command of
language for someone of his age. Brian continued to be actively involved in the
lives of his grand-daughters, Emily and Lauren. He had, in fact, been
actively involved in their lives on an almost weekly basis since their births.
He had recently commenced a relationship with Maya Walker, a 36-year-old Slovenian colleague
at Off Centre who had an eleven-year-old son. Maya Walker happened to have a petite frame. This
seemingly innocuous fact was to be used against Brian Pead at a later date.
He was continuing to monitor the Faceparty shenanigans, which were also being monitored
by other responsible citizens and members of the website.
He had engaged in four conversations with the person alleging to be a
14-year-old female. The first contact was on 28 January 2008 in a Faceparty chatroom and then the dialogue moved to MSN.
Two further conversations occurred on 7 February and 25 February 2008.
In these conversations, he had provided three false mobile telephone
numbers. He had never discussed meeting a 14-year-old for sex. He had never believed
that the person was a 14-year-old. He had believed that he was dealing with an
adult who was attempting to pass off as a teenager.
No contact had been made between Brian and the other party throughout
March - hardly the action of someone interested in meeting someone for sex!
With full internet access at Off Centre and Sub19, he decided to save a little
money to spend on his refurbishment by ceasing the BT internet connection.
Again, this is hardly the action of someone interested in meeting people for
sex on the internet as the police were later to claim.
He was, as always, reading avidly. His life was full. Yet the angst in
respect of his wrongful dismissal from Lambeth and the farcical Employment
Tribunal hearings continued to eat at him.
12
He did not receive a response from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, so
he wrote again on 30 April 2008:
“…I refer to my letter of 26 March 2008.
Regrettably, I have not received your reply
to this letter and I am most concerned that my original letter has not been
responded to, particularly with the time limit imposed upon one’s ability to
appeal.
In that letter, I stated that I wished to
bring an Appeal, and I asked for more information with regard to the Appeal
process.
Please take this letter as my (second)
formal notification of my wish to appeal…”
Unsurprisingly, given the determined but respectful tone of his second
letter, he did not receive a reply.
He then composed a third letter dated 8 May 2008 which he then decided
to deliver personally to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which he did.
It would have been clear to the authorities that Brian felt strongly
aggrieved that he had been dismissed by Lambeth Council and that he felt strongly that the Employment
Tribunal hearing at the South London Employment Court
in West Croydon had done him a great disservice.
He was not a man to be deterred and he wanted justice.
13
Having received no response
from the Employment Appeal Tribunal [EAT] to
his letter of 30 April 2008, he therefore typed out a third letter dated 8 May
2008. He took a train from New Eltham station in Kent to Charing Cross and walked briskly along
the Victoria Embankment on a mild day.
The letter read:
“…I refer to my previous letters.
Please accept this letter as my intention to
appeal. I have applied for an Appeal within the 42 day time limit since the
judgment was sent to me. I did not receive notification back from the EAT after
my initial correspondence.
Please advise me of the next steps I have to
take to execute this Appeal…”
It is clear that Brian was determined not to let the fiasco at Lambeth
rest until he received justice. It is also clear that he had researched the
limitation period open to him to launch an appeal, and it is clear that his
resolve was such that he took matters into his own hands by travelling into
London from the Sidcup suburbs in order to ensure that his Appeal was received.
He entered the building, handed in the letter and obtained a receipt
for the letter, with a date, time and signature. This is his customary
practice.
Since the debacle of 25 February 2008 in which he informed the
Employment Tribunal judge – Mrs Anne Martin - of Maryn Murray’s grooming of female pupils,
her bullying and her racism, he had been forced to write three letters to the EAT in order
to obtain justice.
He had not received a reply. Someone, he and his friends felt, was
orchestrating this unusual set of circumstances.
Someone did not want this Appeal to be heard.
That ‘someone’ could only
have been linked to his unlawful dismissal from Lambeth Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment