Some breaking news. Phil Baty ran an article in yesterday's THES (25 November 2005).
I had a response to my email (attached to last email AT to VW 23-11-05.EML) which I found most interesting. Firstly, I have already written to the PCO and had a response from them (also with last email GD to AT 21-10-05.DOC) in which they seem quite certain that any recourse to complaint definitely should NOT be addressed to them - indeed Mr. Donald suggests that I might make complaint to the OIA - ping pong!
More important is that the Assistant Adjudicator, Ms. Woollen, states very robustly that ALL documents had been passed on to the Visitor. However, if you take a look at section 6 of the Visitor's report, the Visitor states that
"the volume and complexity of the supporting detail he has supplied: a 24 page petition, supported by 57 appendices, covering the period 1997 to 2003."
To my knowledge, I have never submitted a petition of 24 pages with 57 appendices. My final response to Keele's representations (the weblink that I gave you last time) was 54 pages long with at least 74 appendices, and I assumed that this would be passed on to the Visitor. The only other document of this nature would have been my original complaint which was 57 pages long with 125 appendices. In addition, during the Visitorial/Adjudication process there was a mass of new evidence that the OIA, at least at the time, accepted for review, including the evidence against Professor Rotenberg, and the DPA disclosures from Keele on April 9th 2005. It seems difficult to see, given the evidence so far, that the Visitor really did see all of the material.
Forgive me if I am repeating anything here, but I forget who has been told what, and experience has shown me that repetition is better than risking misunderstanding.
The Rotenberg stuff should be accessible from the weblink, but I'll outline it here because this is particularly of interest to anyone who has actually been up against senior academics. During the fateful upgrade review viva - which I have argued was a kangaroo court, since Professor Rotenberg was the direct superior to Dr. Boulton about whom I was complaining, and the chairman, Professor Gellatly, contrary to what he told me, the AUT and reported to the University, had attended a meeting the previous April specifically about me, and concluding that I should be withdrawn (Professor Sloboda, acting as a temporary PG tutor for this crazy process, was also at this meeting), thus seriously compromising them in this process designed to withdraw me a second time.
Professor Rotenberg literally threw a pile of documents at me (he had to be physically restrained twice during the viva by Professor Gellatly), telling me that this was the sort of stuff I should have been reading - interesting in itself that my supervisor had not directed me to this material. The documents were in 8 point font thus impossible for me to read, despite the fact that the Dept were very aware of my visual disability, and regularly copied material into A3 format for me (even in my initial references, my previous supervisor makes mention of my disability, which, together with the full knowledge of the HoD (Prof Gellatly) and my supervisor, more than fulfilled the need to disclose under the Disability Discrimination Act. The AUT and I made a case for disability discrimination to the DVC, who ignored it, stating that I had not been ‘formally assessed’ as disabled, whatever that means. Professor Gellatly then claimed that he recalled offering to read this stuff out for me (he did not). No-one had ever read material out to me before - there was a long established method of A3 copying that was sufficient for my disability. The documents were nine pages of PsychInfo database records, and would have taken ages to read out, and been impossible to absorb in a viva situation. Not only was this an issue of disability, but how could any student prepare for a viva where the information presented is not in a form that is acceptable, or even agreed upon?
Not until I had presented my case to the OIA did I realise that I had not actually read these papers. What I found was pretty appalling I think.
I have emails from Prof Sloboda categorically stating that the paper under review was the one presented to the Dept in February 2001. The Viva was in December 2001. At least four references in the papers were for articles published in the SUMMER of 2001, and could not have been read my me, since they had not been published at the time of writing the agreed paper. There is a unique PsychInfo ID number and date at the bottom of each page. Interestingly, contrary to other emails from Prof Sloboda to the effect that no member of staff should discuss this situation with Dr. Boulton, there is a second ID number on the papers. Given the very select nature of the searches, my bet is that Dr. Boulton was actually with Prof Rotenberg while they searched for material that would cause me the most difficulty.
Notwithstanding, this is a desperately dire thing for a Professor to do in a viva situation - or any situation for that matter - and constitutes malfeasance, or breach of contract to educate, in my opinion.
When Keele finally disclosed the mass of documents last April, the OIA told me to try to include as much of the material as possible, without opening up new lines of complaint. Of course, during the process Legal Aid was not allowed, and so the review of material had to be done by me, and within the OIA deadline of three weeks. Yet none of this has found its way - even peripherally - into the Adjudicator's advice to the Visitor.
I have emailed Mr. Donald at the PCO, and asked if he could confirm exactly which documents were passed to him, and he has promised a response next week. At least then I can ascertain which bits of information have been missed, but the paucity of the Adjudication seems evidence enough that not all of my evidence was considered, and I find that very dodgy.
One more point of interest. As you may recall from my initial letter on your website, Dr. Precilla Choi was desperately involved in all of this, and I now have email evidence that confirms this. Unfortunately she died in ‘tragic circumstances’ last May, and judging from the obituaries, has been beatified. Like so many bullies before her, those she was friends with have only praise for her. Those she decided, very often in private, to harass, she was a very different animal. As PG Welfare Officer at the time, I can make this assertion based upon experiences from others, as well as myself. Quite bizarrely, however, although being a prime protagonist in this mess, the University, during the Adjudication process (confirmed by the AUT, of which she was a prominent member), approached her for advice on how to proceed with their case. Is that weird?
I’ll try to keep you up to date. All the best
Sorry I've not been in touch recently. My case has lurched from the bizarre to the surreal - and back again! Including time for an aborted mediation that I did not want but was wholeheartedly supported by the OIA, this Adjudication has taken 15 months, and is a whitewash of most of the crucial issues in my case. As you may have seen in the THES today (25th Nov), the Visitor has intervened and would seem to agree.
The issues in this have become so many and multifarious that it is difficult to isolate them, but here at least is a first instalment.
I submitted my complaint to the OIA in August 2004, after attending a Legal services Commission review in which I tried to argue, using Counsel's advice, for legal aid during the Visitorial process. This was rejected. My MP Joan Walley asked a question in the House about this issue of legal aid. David Lammy (then Constitutional Affairs spokesman) replied that, since the Adjudicator system was a free service for students, then the issue of legal aid was not pertinent. By this time my solicitor, under a very restrictive legal aid remit, had secured advice from Counsel (Mr. Clive Rawlings). Despite the limited remit, his advice was to prove very useful. As far as I was concerned, I was itching to get to court, and was frustrated to find that I was obliged to follow the Visitorial/Adjudicator process before I could do this.
While waiting for Keele (as I have so often done before!) I got bored, and issued another DPA request in order to mop up any stray docuemnts that I may have missed. On April 9th 2005 I received a box file with up to 600 pages of documents never seen before by me or the AUT rep, and believe me Brian, they support every contention and circumstantial argument that I put to the University.
Keele sent the following representations at the same time that they disclosed this mass of new documents. Dr. Fletcher (AUT rep) described the University representations as 'pathetic', and indeed they were vapid and slapdash. I reproduced Keele's representations, and then commented on each aspect in my response to the OIA
However, when I was compiling this, I was under the impression that the OIA had access to all the other documents - eg my original complaint plus scores of letters and emails submitted to them - and thus by way of avoiding repetition made assumptions that some information was already available. The Adjudicator seems to have ignored many of these documents in her advice to the Visitor.
Two critical documents not included in the Adjudicator's report, for example, are my original references to Keele secured after I was invited to join the Department by Dr. Boulton based upon the acceptance of my paper in a prestigious academic journal, and are discussed more fully at the above link. Dr. Boulton's reference shows no indication that I had at that time any problem with the discipline of Psychology - quite the opposite in fact, and he seemed very keen to take credit for my work in the Daily Express, when in fact he had nothing to do with the research that generated my paper (I think you posted this little gem of Boulton's on your website). The reference from my previous supervisor (Roland Seymour), who was involved in the preparation of the research for my paper, states clearly that I was ready to write up for MPhil at the time of my move to Keele. My record from Keele to date states that I have done insufficient work EVEN for MPhil. Neither the University, nor the Adjudicator have managed to reconcile these two mutually exclusive assertions, and have refused to explain how I could have gone academically backwards by being a student at Keele for a number of years. With the record as it stands, my prospects for further academic, or any other work has been seriously damaged.
During the Adjudication some remarkable things have happened. As I outlined in my letter to Ms Woollen (Assistant Adjudicator) it was not I who in any way initiated mediation (AT to VW 23-11-05.doc). This notion to explore mediation came from the University, and since the mediator offered by Keele was clearly compromised, I was extremely suspicious of the whole process, and predicting, accurately as it turned out, that Keele were, as they had done so many times before, simply prevaricating. As several emails show, the OIA were surprisingly insistent in their support for mediation, despite my serious reservations, and made it abundantly clear that I should follow this route. Since I had no Legal Aid for advice during this process, I had to reluctantly trust the Adjudicator in this.
The University offered to have an informal meeting. I asked that this should be at my home, and this was arranged for 10th January 2005. I wanted it at my home because I was reasonably sure that there would be no legal implications to my tape recording the meeting, which I did. At this meeting Mr. Morris offered, amongst many other things, to re-instate me onto a PhD program, "free". This was followed up by email requests to me and the AUT to find a suitable supervisor at Keele, and to get material together for presentation (FW 01-02-05.EML). The assumption that I would actually want to study again at Keele was pretty bare-faced, but with my record standing as Keele had defined it, any academic work would have been greatly impaired. When I insisted that I would require this offer in writing, and some form of contract to cover the 'free' bit, and also pointed out that my research was several years dead, the university fell very silent, and the offer was forgotten. To be honest, I believed at that time that Keele wanted me back under their umbrella in order to facilitate an ordered and procedurally correct sacking, it being easier to manipulate the situation with me as a student. Probably not far off the mark. It does seems strange though that the Adjudicator should not have at least mentioned to the Visitor that such offers had been made.
Even more bizarrely, the University offered to create a joint statement to the effect that I was not responsible for the failure of my PhD, which rather begs the question as to who the devil was responsible. Keele has shown itself to be very good at this - apologizing for errors and mistakes, but accepting no responsibility for the consequences of those mistakes (Simon Morris 14 12 04.PDF).
After three months, Keele decided that mediation was no longer a way forward, and the Adjudicator took up the case once more. Throughout this process Keele had delayed and prevaricated almost instinctively. More than once, they were given extensions by the OIA to the time limits imposed, one excuse for an extension was on the grounds of 'the volume of material'. I know many students who could use this same excuse during their research work, but would be given short shrift from the University if they tried it. In fact, given that they were siphoning away my life, the OIA were extremely accommodating to the University's prevarication.
Once I submitted my response to Keele (the above link) I waited for more than three weeks for a response from Keele. Eventually they replied that they had no further comment to make at this stage. Given that I had accused them of setting up a kangaroo court, altering and manipulating documents and generally lying through their teeth, this was a strange response.
I was never happy with the new Adjudication system, and I agree wholeheartedly that some form of watchdog is absolutely essential - academics cannot be left to judge academics. I contacted Phil Baty and my MP, Joan Walley about this at the time. As you are more than well aware, the Visitorial system was obviously flawed, but in more ways than the single problem addressed by the new office, which was that the Visitorial system applied to only about half the Universities, the other half being able to take their cases to court. But a serious criticism of the Visitorial system was also its lack of independence, and this problem was not addressed by the Adjudicator system, in my opinion, sufficient to satisfy the Human Rights Act section 6(1). The new system seems to spread the problems of the Visitor across all Universities without improving the situation. For example, I find it very disturbing that Dame Ruth Deech, as part time Adjudicator, works closely with Janet Finch (Keele VC) in her role as Governor of the BBC. Janet Finch and Tim Gardam (who took over as Principal of St. Annes College from Ruth Deech) both work on the special committee reviewing the BBC Charter. Seems cosy for someone who purports to be 'independent'? There is also a power organisation called Through the Glass Ceiling comprising women in posts of Professor and VC at Higher education institutions. Janet Finch and Professor Miriam David (both intimately involved in my case) are certainly involved in this group. It's as if someone were to take their company to court, only to find that the Managing Director plays golf with the Judge. It does not leave me with a sense that the Adjudicator is truly 'Independent', but maybe I'm paranoid.
After receiving this vapid Adjudication, and the consequent Visitorial report, I complained to the Privy Council Office about some of the more obvious ommissions in the Adjudication, and received a personal reply (GD to AT 21-10-05). Mr. Donald (PCO) is very clear that Visitorial input has ended, so taking the implied advice from his letter, I complained to the OIA via the only contact that I have - the Assistant Adjudicator, Victoria Woollen. I received her reply only yesterday (VW to AT 24-11-05.EML), but as you can see, she seems to believe that I should make complaint to the Visitor's office. Yet another game of ping-pong!
Critical always in this case has been my complaint prepared originally for the Deputy Vice Chancellor, who categorically refused to review its new evidence. This document was four volumes long, including 125 appendices, but the University, and now the Adjdicator, has consistently refused to look at it. What the University should be saying is 'You are wrong because your evidence does not stand up to scrutiny', rather than what they in fact say, which boils down to 'You are wrong because we are not going to review the evidence'.
It is very clear that the Adjudicator has avoided many of the issues, not least the disability issues highlighted by the Visitor, but also some very clear evidence of malfeasance.
56 Endon Road
08 February 2004
Dear Mr. Daugherty
My name is Andy Terry. I am 48 years old and now registered blind. In 1997, based upon the publication of a paper in a prestigious journal, I was invited to join the Keele Psychology Department by Dr. Mike Boulton, to be supervised by him. The fact that I had unwittingly by-passed the normal induction procedures seemed to incense the Postgraduate tutor, Dr. Precilla Choi, which set in motion an ethos of suspicion and hostility within the Department. In an attempt to defuse some of this, I agreed to take on the responsibility of Postgraduate representative, a move that I bitterly regret now, because it put me head to head with an already aggressive Postgraduate tutor, and as the situation deteriorated, I had no-one to represent me against the Department, nor ultimately the University. Subsequently I obtained support from the AUT.
As many of your other contributors have indicated, the complaint process, certainly at Keele, is absurd. They appeared to be making it up as they went along, and certainly I believe there were deliberate attempts to delay the process as much as possible. There was a painfully slow reaction to my complaint (six months before anyone even looked at it - I have the emails), in fact molasses slow reaction to all aspects of my complaints, as well as overly tardy response to official document disclosure requests, despite the requirements of the Data Protection Act. In fact, it seems that sloth is the University's most effective secret weapon - the longer they can string along a case, the more likely it is that the student will simply give up.
I have been in dispute with Keele University for nearly five years now from my initial tentative attempts at complaint. Due to the 'hostile atmosphere' (conclusion of research Degrees Committee 'investigation') in the Psychology Department towards me from a very early time I had fortunately kept every piece of correspondence to and from the University.
From very early on, I was required to attend expensive, time-consuming courses in statistics. At no time was my competency assessed before these courses, and at no time were the efficacy of the courses assessed on return. It became clear to me that this was being organised to make my life difficult, to harass me, in the hope that I would leave. I had little contact with my supervisor, and the Postgraduate tutor was making my time there extremely uncomfortable.
My supervisor clearly implied in a national newspaper article that my published work involved him and was carried out at Keele (reproduced at bottom)
Neither of these things were true - the work was done solely by me, and at Crewe and Alsager College. Even if this was not deliberate, it was a serious error for a senior academic, practiced in media representation, to make. Dr. Choi was the Department’s self-styled media expert, and is certain to have realised such an error. This may have been an aspect contributing to the antipathy towards me.
It is apparent that he attempted to modify student reports to the University (for at least one another student also). The student progress reports contain inaccuracies that by anyone's standard are mendacious. One of the reports used against me has clearly been photocopied over, and as such is seriously compromised in my view. Confidential reports from supervisor to Research Degrees Committee now reveal open mendaciousness on the part of Dr. Boulton and Dr. Choi, who rely heavily upon these compromised reports, as well as patently untrue reports by Dr. Boulton. Together with the Post graduate tutor (Dr. Choi), he attempted to marginalise my work - telling me to my face on many occasions that I should never allow anyone to 'downgrade' my work to MPhil, that it was a good PhD - while at the same time reporting to the Department and the University that I had not done sufficient work even for MPhil. Having already (and unusually I think) been published in the best journal for the field, I found this to be indefensible. I spent six months designing and implementing a pilot questionnaire for schoolteachers. The results were inconclusive, but this is not unusual for a pilot study. Dr. Boulton to this day has never reviewed the findings, nor assessed the efficacy of the research instrument. Even though, as emails clearly show, Dr. Boulton was actively aware that I was successfully completing and issuing this questionnaire, he reports confidentially to the University that he has repeatedly asked me to do this, but it has not been forthcoming.
It came to the point where my supervision was so inadequate, even as a part time student, with as little as two supervisor meetings in a year - then an amazing period of almost an entire academic year without supervision, and without the assessment of written material submitted to him, that I finally made what I thought would be an official complaint. Unfortunately, following the correct University protocol as indicated to me by the Dean of Postgraduate Affairs, this had to be made to the Postgraduate tutor, Dr. Choi. My complaint was not pursued by her, nor reported to the Department. I was obliged to attend a meeting with the Postgraduate tutor and my supervisor. I was not told that I could bring anyone with me, though as Postgraduate representative it was difficult to think of anyone who could represent me, nor did I believe that this would be necessary. However, the meeting was intensely confrontational, in which Dr. Boulton many times referred to me as 'unsupervisable', and that his lack of interest in my questionnaire was due to it being a 'pilot of a pilot study'. Dr. Choi endorsed the dismissal of my work by calling it a 'pre-pilot study' - truly nonsensical phrases, since a pilot study can only be a pilot study. This of course did not address the obvious point that, if this work was not reviewed in any way, it seemed impossible to make improvements, and as Dr. Boulton was insisting on more data collection and further questionnaire work, it was surely not feasible without guidance to provide this without replicating the alleged mistakes in the original pilot. It was insisted that I attend yet more statistics courses (again with no assessment at either end of the process).
I applied to the University for a years leave of absence, due to constant pressure that I had suffered as a student in the Department, and on the basis of my personal situation (getting divorced), but primarily I wanted time to find out what was going on. During this period of medical leave of absence the Department through Dr. Boulton and Dr. Choi, insisted on yet more statistics training throughout that year, and the production of an important upgrade document within days of the medical leave being over. The Research Degrees Committee admitted that insisting on work being required during medical leave of absence was not supportable, but there was no assessment by them as to the deleterious effects that such a judgement had on me. Towards the end of the year, and due to the complaints that I had already made, Dr. Boulton demanded more and more impossible targets - one such target was to design, implement and data analyse a questionnaire in three weeks! This was still being required during my medical leave of absence, and the pressure at this time was intolerable. Both Dr. Boulton and Dr. Choi were insisting that I attend another expensive statistics course at Essex University for the coming summer, again with no review of the efficacy of the previous courses, nor whether I had achieved the desired knowledge (nor indeed with any offer of finance from the Department for such imperative training).
At the end of the leave my mother died. The required document was late (although the Research Degrees Committee accepted that the date for submission was incorrect). I was peremptorily dismissed from the University,
I appealed against this arguing that my supervision was inadequate and support from the Department ineffective. It was also evident that the university had not issued the required four-week notice of withdrawal, nor had they shown that I had been consistently failing - the only offence that could warrant withdrawal.
An 'investigation' was set up that signally failed to investigate anything. The Research Degrees Committee upheld some of my complaints about procedure, admitting that there was a 'hostile environment' in the Department towards me and that this may have contributed to my 'lack of progress', but giving no conclusions about where this hostility came from, nor assessing its effect on my work. However, my core complaint regarding poor supervision and inadequate Departmental support were not upheld. I was offered £1000 towards tuition fees with the proviso that I would not pursue the matter further. I refuse to sign this.
I made attempts to get joint supervision with the Education Department, a perfectly reasonable request. This incensed both Dr. Boulton, who appeared to take it as a personal affront, and Dr. Choi, who had their own meetings with the Education department. I am convinced that they blackened my name with the Education Department by describing me as 'unsupervisable'. I later tried to transfer completely to the Education Department, and was given the temporary supervision of the Dean, a Professor of Gerontology with no knowledge of my research in either Psychology or Education.
I was desperately pursuing the possibility of transfer to the Education department by now, still with the 'help' of the Dean and on his advice, rewriting my upgrade document specifically as a proposal to the education department.
In the meantime, the University began acting in a bizarre fashion. My withdrawal was never officially retracted, but the university decided that, after more than 12 months without contact from the Psychology Department, and certainly no supervision from Dr. Boulton, I should undergo a viva review of my upgrade document by the Psychology department, in order to correct procedural inconsistencies. I was given only days to prepare this long document, and I had only a matter of days to prepare for this crucial viva. At this point, requests for more time from the AUT with regard to my visual disability were consistently refused. A senior member of the Academic Affairs Department, Dr. Sarah Anderson, emailed me regarding this in which she states that:
As far as taking account of your disability is concerned, I stand by the statement which I made in my mail of 8 January to Steve French. Many students with disabilities do not want special consideration. There is a procedure for declaring a disability and having a formal assessment made, together with a process for developing a negotiated plan for dealing with the academic requirements of a student's programme.
I shudder to think what ‘formal assessment’ I was supposed to undergo for the University to accept my registration as blind. I believe that this contravened my rights as a disabled student.
All students are allowed the presence of a supervisor at these vivas, but none was offered by my appointed ‘temporary’ Postgraduate tutor, Professor John Sloboda, who seemed amused by the notion. It was also clear to me and to the AUT rep, that the result of this review had already been decided.
Thus, a document that had been rewritten for the education department was to be reviewed by the Psychology Department. None of the 40,000 words already written of my thesis, nor documentation from my previous institution (Crewe and Alsager) were allowed to be reviewed, despite written agreement from the University that my previous work was admissible. I went to the viva with great trepidation, and with good cause. The panel had two professors from Psychology. Professor Gellatly was the Head of Department throughout my traumatic time there. Professor Rotenberg was the direct superior to Dr. Boulton, my ‘supervisor’. The upgrade viva, which according to the Department literature was to be 'constructive', 'supportive' and 'objective', were none of these things. The session was extremely belligerent, and Professor Gellatly had to physically restrain Professor Rotenberg at least twice as he became more and more aggressive. He was most adamant that a page in my 'pilot of a pilot' study contained the word 'bullying'. He said that the use of this term constituted 'a serious lack of knowledge of Social Psychology'. I have an original first draft of this document that clearly shows Dr. Boulton changed my wording to include the term bullying. During the viva Professor Rotenberg somewhat theatrically slid a sheaf of papers across the table to me. There were nine pages of close 9 and 8-point type that was impossible for me to read. The Department had been aware of my visual difficulties for some years, and most material from the Department secretaries was given to me in A3 enlarged format. Professor Gellatly has subsequently stated that believed that he had asked me if I wanted this read out. This was not true, and in any case, the sheets constitutes nine pages of periodical references which would be nonsensical if read aloud. This was a kangaroo court. On the basis of this review, and on supposed evidence from my compromised student reports, the University deemed me to have consistently failed, and I was withdrawn again.
Now with the support of the AUT, I compiled a comprehensive report together with 125 appendices containing emails, letters and photocopies supporting my case, as well as new evidence from confidential documents that had been acquired reluctantly from the University.
This was presented to the Deputy Vice Chancellor Professor David Vincent. He refused at all points to review new evidence. He declared his remit to be an examination of any procedural irregularities in the investigation by the Research Degrees Committee only, and his report to the Vice-Chancellor was a nonsensical whitewash of the serious events leading to, and subsequent to my complaint.
At no point in this process was I told about the Visitor, nor indeed did I have any knowledge about the Visitorial role. There is nothing in the Keele complaint procedures, statutes or regulations that even mention the Visitor, let alone that the Queen was now in some way party to my complaint.
After many abortive attempts to get solicitors interested in my case - usually when they discover the presence of the Visitor their enthusiasm wanes - I have found a solicitor who has successfully gained advice from Counsel. We are hoping, on the advice from Counsel, to persuade the Legal Services Commission to allow legal aid for presentation to the Visitor, his argument being logically that, since were I to be at a university without a Visitor, I would be eligible for legal aid for judicial review, then so should I be for the Visitor. As he points out, the nature of the court should not determine whether or not legal aid is allowed. I hope that if this is successful, more students will be able to take this route while this arcane and archaic system is still in force.
As with many of your contributors, this has left me seriously debilitated mentally and physically. I have no job, and my aspirations to teach at University have been shattered. I have never, ever, had any previous indication of mental problems, but now I exist day to day on anti-depressants. The research for which I was always committed and enthusiastic, which I believe to be of vital importance to teachers, has fallen by the wayside, as I try to clear my name, and regain some of the academic respect that these people have robbed me. I believe that my story, together with the others that you have collected, is a damning indictment of University administration. I have been consistently lobbying MPs with regard to the patent unfairness of the Visitorial system, particularly in light of the new ‘top up fees’ legislation, which I see as poor legislation being supported on a foundation of appalling legislation. My MP Joan Walley, is preparing a presentation for the Minister with regard to the Human Rights Aspect of this, and best of luck to her.
I have all my documentation and evidence on a CD, which I would be glad to forward to you, if you wish.
Best wishes, and luck with your own dispute with Newcastle
The following is a report regarding my original and unique research into the phenomenon of pupils bullying teachers. The express interviewed Dr. Boulton as my current supervisor while I was not available. The research was carried out solely by me, and none of the work was done at Keele University, but at Crewe and Alsager College.
Lewis Smith (1998) ‘Crisis in the Classrooms’ Daily Express June 27th 1998 pg 20