Former headteacher Sir Alan Davies of Copland Community School, Wembley received 12 month sentence suspended for two years today on 6 charges of false accounting.
Full story on Kilburn Times website HERE
The ATL and NUT in Brent have issued the following statement:
Full story on Kilburn Times website HERE
The ATL and NUT in Brent have issued the following statement:
Today in Southwark Crown Court Sir Alan Davies, who yesterday pleaded guilty, although at
the very last minute, to six counts of false accounting, was sentenced to one year's
imprisonment suspended for two years. In passing sentence the Judge said that he showed
‘dishonesty with criminal intent’ and that his conduct was ‘disgraceful’. She made it clear that,
had he not pleaded guilty, his conduct would have resulted in an immediate custodial sentence.
The judge was also minded to make a compensation order against Davies regarding the costs
of Brent's investigation. However, she was informed that Brent Council is considering
pursuing their costs through the civil court.
Before the trial commenced a deal was struck, involving Keir Starmer, Head of the Crown
Prosecution Service.
Hank Roberts said, “It appears that a school can set up a company, and legally pay the
headteacher hundreds of thousands of pounds out of the pupils education budget for project
management. At the moment technically legal it may be, but shouldn't a headteacher of a
secondary school paid over £100, 000 a year expend their energies on the children's education?
And shouldn't this legal loophole be closed? Sir Alan has been found guilty and sentenced and
now has a criminal record. That at least is some justice.”
Lesley Gouldbourne said, “What action is going to be taken to get back the money lost from
the kid's education? What action is going to be taken to remove his knighthood? ”
29 comments:
Unbelievable. Literally unbelievable, as no one who knows anything about the case believes a word of the acquittals. Davies had threatened to plead not guilty and 'name names'. Those names were powerful people in local and national politics. After a little plea-bargaining suddenly he's acquitted. Here's a little background to one the other accused: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jun/07/tory-deputy-head-paintings-mary-fedden. I think a certain pattern can be detected. As I say, unbelievable.
Ha! - So 'Fearless Whistleblower' Hank Roberts says that "At the moment technically legal it may be, but shouldn't a headteacher of a secondary school paid over £100, 000 a year expend their energies on the children's education?" Could this possibly be the same Hank Roberts that spent 5 days a week at Copland as a full time Teaching Union Rep.and was effectively paid in excess of £57,000 pa NOT to Teach? Might I suggest that the person that should have been seeking to 'expend his energies on the children's education' was HIM. Glass Houses, Mr. Roberts, Glass Houses...
You refer to the tricking of the aged artist Mary Fedden into 'donating' expensive paintings supposedly for a 'gallery' at the school to inspire 'deprived' youngsters. Evans paid a number of visits to her house taking young pupils with him as 'leverage'. These children were witnesses to his eagerness to get his hands on the artwork.. The paintings were then sold at Sothebys by Evans. Others have supplied the police with evidence corroborating this. Why no prosecution yet?
See http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jun/07/tory-deputy-head-paintings-mary-fedden
Red herrings, Mr Dacre, red herrings. You might have noticed that Bob Crowe hasn't been driving a lot of trains lately either and that Gordon Taylor's goal tally this season is extremely disappointing. 'Full-time Union Officer': the clue is in the title. Wouldn't you be better off concerning yourself with the missing £2.7 million? It's your money after all.
Actually, the clue is in the title 'Teacher', which is on his Contract of Employment at the School.
If he was being paid £57,000 pa by his Teaching Union to be a full-time Union Representative, nobody could complain - but he wasn't, was he? Bob Crowe is a REAL full time Union Rep, so he is paid by his Union - no problem. In contrast, Roberts was in fact being paid as a Geography Teacher out of School Funds (although he never taught any classes) and the School (along with a number of others in Brent) was being quietly 'reimbursed' by Brent Council via an understandably clandestine cost-centre called the the Facilities Fund. This system exists among other reasons to hide the fact that Brent Taxpayers are paying for dozens of Teaching Union Reps in schools across the Borough and have done so for years.
One last thing - on top of Roberts' basic salary, he received Bonuses from the school. So Roberts was in receipt of the very same Bonuses that he claimed were 'Unlawful' - if he was genuinely being paid by his Union as a full-time Union Rep, how could he possibly be receiving Bonuses from the school?
Complete codswallop! - Evans had been a friend of Mary Fedden for over 20 years and had collected her Paintings for longer still.
Far from paying "...a number of visits to her house taking young pupils with him as 'leverage", the only reason Mary Fedden even allowed groups of young students to invade her Studio was because of her long-time friendship with Evans. This friendship also explains why Mary Fedden had agreed to donate works for displaying in what would have been the new Copland School Art Wing which was to be called 'The Mary Fedden Wing'.
Evans had accumulated a large number of Mary Fedden paintings over the years and as an avid Collector of her work, had no intention of selling them. The only reason they were even being sent to Sothebys for sale in the first place was to pay for the rapidly mounting legal costs being incurred in a certain Court Case he found himself embroiled in.
If the Police do indeed have "...evidence corroborating this", I too would be intrigued as to why the Police have not moved on the Case. I also expect Evans' Legal Team would be interested to learn from the Police the identities of these 'others'...
I’ll leave Brent to comment on the arrangements you refer to but your choice of target is consistent with the Patel/Davies/Evans apologists who, from the point at which their intentions for trust status and dodgy property development were first revealed, have attempted to distract attention from corrupt activities on a massive scale at the top (far beyond the ‘relatively’ minor ‘bonus’ scams) by ad hominem attacks on the individual who did most to bring the situation at Copland to public attention. Anyone claiming knowledge of as much arcane detail as you reveal in your comments would know precisely what was going on in the bigger picture and your apparent lack of interest in the £2.7 million and the other matters speaks volumes for your intentions and allegiances. As I say, red herrings. And fooling nobody.
If you believe this, as they say,..............And what contempt is contained in that word 'invade'!
And the 'certain Court Case'? Surely not the bonus scams. The sales of Mary Fedden's paintings predated this by years. "It has now come to light that Dr Evans has been consigning Mary Fedden paintings for sale at Sotheby's - around 15 of them have been sold (for many thousands of pounds) in this way over the last several years." http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jun/07/tory-deputy-head-paintings-mary-fedden
I’ll leave Brent to comment on the arrangements you refer to but your choice of target is consistent with the Patel/Davies/Evans apologists who, from the point at which their intentions for trust status and dodgy property development were first revealed, have attempted to distract attention from corrupt activities on a massive scale at the top (far beyond the ‘relatively’ minor ‘bonus’ scams) by ad hominem attacks on the individual who did most to bring the situation at Copland to public attention. Anyone claiming knowledge of as much arcane detail as you reveal in your comments would know precisely what was going on in the bigger picture and your apparent lack of interest in the £2.7 million and the other matters speaks volumes for your intentions and allegiances. As I say, red herrings.
"It has now come to light that Dr Evans has been consigning Mary Fedden paintings for sale at Sotheby's - around 15 of them have been sold (for many thousands of pounds) in this way over the last several years." . Of course he has - remember that LB Brent sacked him four and a half years ago and he was out of work for a long period of time. The Paintings were originally sold to pay for the family's monthly living costs, but as time went by, his mounting legal costs. These were his paintings to sell, not the school's - the school's Paintings that Fedden donated to it are still in LB Brent's possession awaiting return to the school itself. If you don't believe me, phone them up and ask them.
Where to start...
The "...trust status and dodgy property development..." you attribute to Davies and others was actually being driven by the LB Brent. The reasons were manifold, but were principally:
o The so-called 'dodgy development' consisted of a new school and more than 450 Flats, of which in excess of 100 of these would have been immediately turned over to Brent Social Services as Social & Key Worker Housing. Brent was/is desperate for brand-new high-quality Social Housing, so to be given 100 brand-new Flats free of charge was understandably of interest to them.
o Brent had demanded £560,000 from the Developer of the new school in return for what is called a '106 Agreement' (without which the development could not proceed). The Developer signed the Contract with LB Brent agreeing to this.
o Copland School was 'invited' to pay the sum of £250,000 to LB Brent in return for a 'Land Swap' deal to allow the development of the new school to proceed.
o At the completion of the development of the new school/flats, there would be an amount of money payable into the school's Budget by the Developer - this amount was to be split 50/50 between the school and LB Brent.
I fully accept we approach this issue from diametrically opposite ends - I don't agree with you, but I can and do respect your views. All I would say is that if this property deal was 'dodgy', then why was LB Brent so keen to drive it forward and be more than happy to accept in excess of £1m and 100+ new Flats FREE from it?
As regards Brent's 'Fearless Whistleblower', the 'arcane detail' you refer to regarding how he and other Teaching Union Reps. were paid out of Brent taxpayers money is apparently already under scrutiny. If the 'Facilities Fund' practice used by Brent is being used by Councils in other parts of the country, I suspect Mr. Roberts will find himself rather unpopular with his Union if they have to start picking up the multiple salary costs themselves instead of leaving it to the taxpayer to foot the bill. The cost of paying Union Reps 'not to Teach' at Copland School alone was around £100,000 a year to Brent taxpayers - how many other schools in Brent were being penalised in this way? Remember, a Teacher who is not teaching invariably needs to be covered for by a Supply Teacher - for which the school has to foot the bill and is not reimbursed by LB Brent.
Red Herring?...
The Guardian/Observer article containing the accusations against Evans is dated 7th June 2009 and the 'last several years' during which he had sold 'around 15' of the paintings obviously refers to the several years before THAT (ie 2006/7/8), NOT the four years since his sacking. The paintings were being sold and his visits to Mary Fedden to 'acquire' them being made, (visits on which no other interested member of staff was allowed to accompany him, strangely enough) long before Brent acted on the 'unusual' financial practices at the school, Which rather demolishes your argument really.
Still, thanks for the story about 'the new Copland School Art Wing which was to be called 'The Mary Fedden Wing'. Most of us hadn't heard that one before. And I'm pleased to hear that at least some of the paintings were given back, at some saving to the public purse no doubt.
Well, yes, really, red herring, as the posts here have their origins in the courts' decisions on Davies, Evans and Patel delivered last week and your focus seems to be on the messenger who revealed the corruption at Copland rather than the message of the corruption itself. And if the motivation is not, as it appears to be, personal ( ‘fearless whistleblower’ etc), then it’s tactical, a distraction from the activities and subsequent attempts at cover-up which set this whole thing in motion. (It could be neither of these, of course, and you simply have a rather eccentric idea of forensic priorities).
Obviously Brent was deeply involved in Davies’s plans for the Copland site. It could hardly be otherwise. But although LB Brent is a sometimes unfairly-maligned borough, even its most loyal defenders would surely never argue that its involvement in a property scheme in some way automatically sanctifies all aspects of that project. Nor that, because some benefit accrues to the council, there will be no potential for a little (or more likely, a very big) collateral financial benefit to someone else. The question is who that ‘someone else’ ought (or, more importantly, ought not) to be; what it can possibly have to do with the duties of the job they’re paid to do; what conflicts of interest might arise; what neglect of duties; the corrupting effect of the huge amounts of money involved; the need for secrecy; the misuse of power in punishing those who discover and reveal what might be going on, etc etc etc.
However, the charges that were dropped in last week’s last-minute deal only partially touched on the question of the extent of Davies, Evans and Patel’s altruistic disinterest in their plans for the development of the Copland site and so I could be accused of drifting away from the origins of the present discussion in the way I implied that you were doing. For which, apologies.
his is shocking.
When the five defendants left court, they did not have a stain on their character. They were proven innocent - "properly paid" meaning that overtime (call it bonuses if you like) can be paid and "properly earned", meaning that they had done the work to earn the overtime / bonuses.
Now there is this post. It has totally damaged his reputation and brought him into disrepute. There can be no way that I, or any other right-thinking person, reading this will not have thought the less of him as a consequence.
You've presumably been on holiday, sir. Davies was found guilty and sentenced. The conspiracy charges were dropped as the quid pro quo for him pleading guilty (after 4 years of denial). The others were part of the conspiracy (allegation) so they walked free. That's the way things work. It's law, it's not morality, nor, often, is it justice. No one was 'proven innocent' of anything.
If all of this is shocking for you then I'm sorry. But you're not alone.Thousands of people have registered their shock at what went on at Copland, not least among them the judge in her pre-sentencing address..
YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT ATTEND COURT. THE JUDGE, PROSECUTION AND WILLIAM CLEGG QC REPRESENTING SIR ALAN ALL AGREED THAT "ALL MONIES PAID TO SIR ALAN WERE HONESTLY PAID TO HIM AND HONESTLY RECEIVED BY HIM"
Questions: 1. When was the last time this union person Roberts actually taught a class of pupils? 2. When was the last time he marked a book properly? 3. When was the last time he called a class register? 4. When was the last time he set homework for a class? 5. When was the last time he attended an inservice training session? 6.When was the last time he set academic targets for pupils? 7. When was the last time he wrote a report about a pupil's progress for a parent? 8. Does he know what constitutes a Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 Curriculum? 9. When was the last time he did a teaching duty? 10. When was the last time he wrote a lesson plan? If he or anyone else can provide an answer I will decide if he can properly be called a Geography teacher.
We have known him for a long time. Until we get answers we have no choice but to class him as a full time non teaching union representative who has added nothing to the education of pupils at Copland or any other school in the country. By not contributing in any way to the education of Copland pupils for many years and being paid a high salary and bonuses he has drained the budget taking money from the pupils.
Signed: A fellow NUT member at Copland School
To me it seems the whistleblower has an unhealthy attraction to Sir Alan.
My be he should find himself a day job, Oh yes he's a 'geography teacher'
Thousands believe that Bent Council should make Plank pay for their investigation, after all it was his obsession with Sir Alan which has led to the fall of a great school ! Which school is next after Copland closes? Where will he go? Who Knows.
I have been following this interesting thread for a while now but it seemed to have gone cold. I am glad to see that some people have got together to revive it though it’s a bit worrying that they don’t seem at all bothered about what has happened over the last few years to things like honesty decency and integrity in civic life. Nonetheless their comments are at least an excellent demonstration that in a democracy absolutely anybody has the opportunity to get their opinion stated.
In that case democracy has a lot to answer for.
It seems everyone's happy..the police can justify a long drawn out costly investigation because Davies was found guilty. Davies gets off light, very light, and tax payers pay the bill..Barnum effect;something for everyone, except he who pays the bill. This requires re-investigation...
sadly this is believable anon.
I mean take the case of Mr Mcnulty
who deliberately cheated in order to gain @ the tax payers expense despite being a extremely well paid (ex) MP.
if that had been you or I It is safe to say we would be behind bars now
and Why?
because we knowingly Broke the Law.
Yet A davie and T Mc also Broke the Law and neither received a prison sentence.
Don't get me wrong Now however and assume That I am hard and merciless.
However We both grew up in a Country That makes it very clear What is Acceptable and unacceptable according to the law and also what we receive when we break the Law.
so there after if choose to obey or break the Law we Now what we gain in return.
However certain people Break those Laws but appear to do so with a kind of Confidence
perhaps due to knowing that they can use their position in society to their advantage?
whereas you and I don't have Titles or whatever so if we break the law we do so with a lot of fear expecting to Receive what Mc and Davies didn't.
This should make us realize That Britain is far from a Just and orderly Nation.
and if It was you can be sure That Crime would likely go down because How of us Like the thought of years in prison?
What more Tax payers 'money' to re-investigate innocent people, This is why this country has gone to pot. Full of union time wasters.
........and People who c'ant, PUNCtuate"?
When I said I thought that this thread had gone cold I didn’t realise that there was also a lot of discussion of the activities of Mr Davies Mr Evans and Dr Patel over on the Kilburn Times website. There is also a link there to a petition to ‘strip Sir Alan Davies of his knighthood’. The article is here http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/petition_launched_calling_for_former_headteacher_of_wembley_school_to_be_stripped_off_his_knighthood_1_2869403
The petition is here
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/strip-sir-alan-davies-of-his-knighthood/
Perhaps people are concerned about standards in civic life after all as long as they are able to find out what is going on behind their backs.
As an ex pupil of yours many years ago, I noticed marking wasn't your strongest point!!!!
Hence im suffering now.
Thanks for the tip. I signed the petition. While I was on the Kilburn Times site I also saw an item headlined: BRENT’S TOP COP TALKS ABOUT HOW ‘HEAD CAMS’ CAN BE USED TO TACKLE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE The comment below is: 'Head Cams', eh? Might be useful in keeping tabs on the activities of crooked School Leaders like Copland's Davies. Given what happened there, can we have Deputy Head cams too, please?’
Serious subject I know but I had to share.
Just to clarify as some people appear to think some of the comments above are from me. I never comment as Anonymous and all the above is part of a dialogue between Wembley Matters' readers. I posted the original story.
Martin Francis
Post a Comment